Hi! On Thu 2013-09-26 17:48:29, Rob Landley wrote: > On 09/25/2013 11:13:17 AM, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > >On Wed, 25 Sep 2013, Rob Landley wrote: > > > >> On 09/24/2013 09:07:57 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > >> > I'd strongly suggest you make your binutils compatible with newer > >> > instruction syntax instead of making the kernel more complex. > >> > >> Meaning I play whack-a-mole as this becomes permission to depend > >on endless > >> new gnuisms just because they're there and nobody else is > >regression testing > >> against them, not because they actually add anything. > > > >Gnuism? > > > >Let me quote the ARM ARchitecture Reference Manual, version 7 > >revision C, > >section A8.8.44 (sorry for the whitespace dammage): > > Globally changing the binutils requirement for all architectures, as > the doc patch at the start of this thread proposed doing, would mean > gnuisms in common code (ext2 and such) wouldn't get caught, giving > llvm and pcc and such a moving target when trying to build the > kernel with non-gnu toolchains. That's what I meant by gnuisms > breeding. Well. I did the docs patch, but my preferred solution would actually be to get the patches reverted so that it still works with old binutils. (So far, I updated one machine with new cross environment, two more to go.) Anyway, it should be solved _somehow_. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
