From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:11:19 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [git commit] toolchain-external: update Linaro ARM toolchain In-Reply-To: <874n8ouivj.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> References: <20131009143431.9A85B9B970@busybox.osuosl.org> <52564EFD.10506@mind.be> <20131010095744.5690a242@skate> <5257BE84.5020901@lucaceresoli.net> <20131011112938.16a751d7@skate> <878uy0un36.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> <20131011122355.791e8810@skate> <874n8ouivj.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> Message-ID: <20131011141119.7d87610d@skate> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Peter Korsgaard, On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 13:50:08 +0200, Peter Korsgaard wrote: > Thomas> Of course, we still have to decide whether we want gcc 4.8, 4.7, and > Thomas> 4.6, or rather larger jumps like > Thomas> gcc 4.8, 4.4, 4.0 or something like that. > > As we support each individual 4.x version between 4.3 and 4.8 for the > internal toolchain (+/- odd architectures) and Linaro is pretty leading > edge, I would say 4.6 -> 4.8. This still doesn't solve the case where Linaro 2013.11 would jump from the next eglibc version, but keeping the same gcc version, for example. Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com