From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Waldemar Brodkorb Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 17:18:09 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] binutils: add comment with bug report reference In-Reply-To: <20161030164340.6d8d079b@free-electrons.com> References: <20161030132511.GA23794@waldemar-brodkorb.de> <20161030164340.6d8d079b@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <20161030161809.GG1797@waldemar-brodkorb.de> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hi Thomas, Thomas Petazzoni wrote, > Hello, > > On Sun, 30 Oct 2016 14:25:11 +0100, Waldemar Brodkorb wrote: > > Add requested bug report > > > > Signed-off-by: Waldemar Brodkorb > > --- > > package/binutils/Config.in.host | 1 + > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > diff --git a/package/binutils/Config.in.host b/package/binutils/Config.in.host > > index a7610b4..dce6996 100644 > > --- a/package/binutils/Config.in.host > > +++ b/package/binutils/Config.in.host > > @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ choice > > config BR2_BINUTILS_VERSION_2_27_X > > bool "binutils 2.27" > > # supported but broken on Microblaze > > + # see https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20748 > > depends on !BR2_microblaze > > Your bug report is about binutils 2.27 generating broken binaries for > microblaze/musl, but you disable binutils 2.27 completely for > microblaze, and not just for musl. Why so? Because the binutils bug affects musl/uClibc-ng and glibc. I just used musl to bisect and simplified the bug report. Furthermore I normally get very good support from the musl devs in case of toolchain issues. best regards Waldemar