From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: rob@landley.net (Rob Landley) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 17:50:19 -0500 Subject: new binutils needed for arm in 3.12-rc1 In-Reply-To: (from mans@mansr.com on Wed Sep 25 15:49:07 2013) Message-ID: <1380235819.1974.94@driftwood> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 09/25/2013 03:49:07 PM, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: > Russell King - ARM Linux writes: > > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:23:06AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote: > >> On 09/24/2013 09:07:57 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > >>> It could be as simple as making gas accept an extra argument for > >>> instructions like dsb and just ignoring it. > >> > >> So you prefer I come up with the reversion patches locally and > _not_ > >> send them upstream? > > > > This is a silly attitude. What you're effectively saying is that we > > are never allowed to use any future ARM instructions in any Linux > > kernel because that might break your precious assembler. > > > > I've got news for you. We're *not* going to listen to that > argument. > > > > END OF DISCUSSION (everything else is just a waste of time.) Who am I to argue with capital letters? > I fully agree. Actually, I thought this was an armv5l regression. (My objection was to requiring a newer toolchain for architectures that built fine under the old one. My attention was attracted by the proposed patch to Documentation/changes with a global updated for required binutils version.) I've since had a chance to confirm the armv5 build break I saw was just normal mid-rc1 noise (since fixed) and this set of patches just applies to armv7, which already required a newer binutils, so objection withdrawn. Rob