Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@xxxxxx> writes: > Hi, > > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 09:00:23AM +0000, Matthew Fortune wrote: > > Markos Chandras <Markos.Chandras@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > I presume you are using binutils >= 2.25? I have seen this problem > > > in my local build tests as well and I discussed this with Matthew > (now on CC). > > > It seems it's an 'innocent' warning added to binutils 2.25 but I am > > > not sure if this is now fixed or not. Matthew might be able to > > > provide more information. > > > > I don't really know what an IP28 kernel is. What is the -march for > this? > > There is an issue with -march=xlp as the XLP is marked as an XLR in > > the e_flags which is a mips64 but the xlp is a mips64r2 which is > > correctly annotated as such in the .MIPS.abiflags. I haven't quite > > figured out what to do about this yet. > > Not sure if related, but I'm getting tons of these warnings as well > already when compiling toolchain alone (GCC 5.1, binutils 2.25, GLIBC > 2.20) for arch=octeon+ and soft-float. This will make e.g. GCC testsuite > useless as pretty much everything fails with excess errors. > Currently for OCTEON toolchain I need to downgrade to binutils 2.24. :-( I think this will be related but for a different underlying reason. I'm afraid I didn't see the fact that we don't actually have link tests that hit every architecture and the few I chose to add explicitly were consistent. I've added a bug for binutils about this: Bug 18401 - MIPS -march=xlp results in inconsistent ISA markers https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18401 I'll try and take a look at a fix (and link test coverage for all archs). Thanks, Matthew
