From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mans@mansr.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?=) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 16:52:44 +0100 Subject: new binutils needed for arm in 3.12-rc1 In-Reply-To: <1380122586.1974.84@driftwood> (Rob Landley's message of "Wed, 25 Sep 2013 10:23:06 -0500") References: <1380122586.1974.84@driftwood> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Rob Landley writes: > On 09/24/2013 09:07:57 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote: >> I'd strongly suggest you make your binutils compatible with newer >> instruction syntax instead of making the kernel more complex. > > Meaning I play whack-a-mole as this becomes permission to depend on > endless new gnuisms just because they're there and nobody else is > regression testing against them, not because they actually add anything. Since when is assembling the instructions correctly, as specified in the arch ref, and not in some other random way a gnuism? -- M?ns Rullg?rd mans at mansr.com