From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 08:57:02 -0700 From: Tom Rini To: Olaf Hering Cc: Christian Kujau , Andrew Morton , linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix typo in binutils version check Message-ID: <20040607155702.GX15195@smtp.west.cox.net> References: <20040605074341.GA15279@suse.de> <40C1A334.5010402@g-house.de> <20040605111135.GA30640@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20040605111135.GA30640@suse.de> Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 01:11:35PM +0200, Olaf Hering wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 05, Christian Kujau wrote: > > > > > Olaf Hering wrote: > > | The binutils check is bogus, it doesnt work with the just released > > | binutils. > > > > why is this check bogus then? i tried to compile a kernel with some > > recent binutils which didn't pass the test - compilation failed. > > H.J.Lu's binutils [1] are working quite well, the releases from redhat > > [2] seem to produce these results you wrote about. > > The checkbin target fails with current binutils cvs, you need an > additional option like -many IMHO, binutils CVS is broken, and -many shouldn't be needed. But that's not the direction things are heading apparently. But I believe that when Paul talked about this with some of the binutils folks it was decided that we should add -many to the AFLAGS so the kernel won't have to care about this. So can you add -many to the AFLAGS, and make the binutils check use $(AFLAGS) as well? Thanks. -- Tom Rini http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/