Re: [PATCH] fix missing option in binutils version check

[Tom Rini <trini@kernel.crashing.org>]

On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 08:07:34PM +0200, Olaf Hering wrote:

>  On Mon, Jun 14, Olaf Hering wrote:
>
> >
> >  On Mon, Jun 14, Tom Rini wrote:
> >
> > > > Everyone who wants to build the latest and greatest kernel can also
> > > > update binutils, its a no-brainer.
> > >
> > > ... which does, or doesn't compile a kernel?  Does the latest and
> > > greatest binutils and gcc automatically pass down -many, or does it fail
> > > to compile because the assembler needs -many, but it's not being passed
> > > along.  That's what I asked.
> >
> > plain gcc 3.2.3 + binutils 2.15.91.0.1 is a challenge, because it passes
> > -mppc instead of -many.
>
> We should fix it like that:
>
> diff -purN linux-2.6.7-rc3-bk6.orig/arch/ppc/Makefile linux-2.6.7-rc3-bk6/arch/ppc/Makefile
> --- linux-2.6.7-rc3-bk6.orig/arch/ppc/Makefile	2004-06-14 15:23:35.000000000 +0200
> +++ linux-2.6.7-rc3-bk6/arch/ppc/Makefile	2004-06-14 19:46:25.336997085 +0200
> @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ CPP		= $(CC) -E $(CFLAGS)
>
>  cflags-$(CONFIG_4xx)		+= -Wa,-m405
>  cflags-$(CONFIG_PPC64BRIDGE)	+= -Wa,-mppc64bridge
> +cflags-$(CONFIG_ALTIVEC)	+= -Wa,-maltivec
>
>  CFLAGS += $(cflags-y)

... except that we can have 'dssall' even when CONFIG_ALTIVEC=n, so we
need it really on CONFIG_6xx.

But more importantly, why did you break the check to stop people with
broken binutils from trying to compile the kernel, and not fix the rest
of the breakage ?

--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/