On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 04:29:59PM +0200, Ralf Baechle wrote: > On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 04:19:35PM +0200, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > > > On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, Ralf Baechle wrote: > > > > > > Are you sure? I believe the patch effectively forces everyone to use > > > > binutils 2.13 for mips64. Is it really acceptable now? > > > > > > In the past week I ended up more and more kludging around binutils bugs. > > > We need something newer and distributions seem to be all at ~ 2.12 at least. > > > > While 2.12 may be OK from the file format point of view, there are > > serious bugs leading to bad code. So bad the kernel doesn't work. It's > > really 2.13 that is needed. I have another less important fix that will > > hopefully go in to 2.13.1 and all gcc versions are broken without yet > > another fix (it bites in mm/mmap.c; not sure if fatally). > > > > > So I guess it's time to bite the bullet? > > > > Since I'm using 2.13 anyway, it's alike to me. But it should be > > discussed at the list, IMO. > > Yep. It won't hurt most of us kernel hackers very much but in particular > the distribution people may want to comment. > > So any comments? Well, I think 2.13's a good idea, but it's very new. I'd say that was acceptable as long as you're looking at MIPS64 only, not at MIPS32. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
