Hi Andrew, all, On Thu, 2016-07-28 at 15:40 -0700, Vineet Gupta wrote: > On 07/28/2016 03:04 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > > > > > > > > Indeed your 2/2 seems to be the most "past-proof" code change. So I > > > > > > > > would think it > > > > is indeed better and is something I should have done in the first > > > > place. > > > > > > > > @Alexey, @Vlad what say you ? > > uClibc traditionally supports the current stable release of binutils, which would make it patch #1 I think. > > > > But 2/2 works for both and makes actual binutils version moot. FWIW, ARC tools > don't as of last release didn't use the upstream/stable binutils, but we are > pretty close to that now though. Personally I'd prefer to not add more conditional defines in uClibc but make it a little-bit simpler. I.e. either Vlad's patch or #1 from this series IMHO looks better. It's been quite some time since we updated our tools with PCL support and I'm not really sure if there's anybody interested in using ages old tools with today's uClibc. We don't test such combinations and there could be issues already in such combos. BTW I noticed that Vlad's patch removes/reverts that thing as well: http://cgit.uclibc-ng.org/cgi/cgit/uclibc-ng.git/commit/ldso/ldso/arc/dl-sysdep.h?id=181d410ad00cddd1d6c9f4835e129136b74 c5187 While Andrew just replaces ".&" construction with "@pcl". I'm wondering which is the correct approach here? -Alexey
