From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 18:10:21 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] binutils: add comment with bug report reference In-Reply-To: <20161030161809.GG1797@waldemar-brodkorb.de> References: <20161030132511.GA23794@waldemar-brodkorb.de> <20161030164340.6d8d079b@free-electrons.com> <20161030161809.GG1797@waldemar-brodkorb.de> Message-ID: <20161030181021.04aa87c0@free-electrons.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, On Sun, 30 Oct 2016 17:18:09 +0100, Waldemar Brodkorb wrote: > > > 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. ACK, thanks for the explanation. But then perhaps your bug report should be made more accurate? As it is written, one might understand than it is a musl-specific problem. Knowing that uclibc-ng and glibc are also affected is quite important IMO. Thanks, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com