Re: New binutils for kernel

[Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@debian.org>]

On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 04:29:59PM +0200, Ralf Baechle wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 04:19:35PM +0200, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, Ralf Baechle wrote:
> > 
> > > >  Are you sure?  I believe the patch effectively forces everyone to use
> > > > binutils 2.13 for mips64.  Is it really acceptable now? 
> > > 
> > > In the past week I ended up more and more kludging around binutils bugs.
> > > We need something newer and distributions seem to be all at ~ 2.12 at least.
> > 
> >  While 2.12 may be OK from the file format point of view, there are
> > serious bugs leading to bad code.  So bad the kernel doesn't work.  It's
> > really 2.13 that is needed.  I have another less important fix that will
> > hopefully go in to 2.13.1 and all gcc versions are broken without yet
> > another fix (it bites in mm/mmap.c; not sure if fatally). 
> > 
> > > So I guess it's time to bite the bullet?
> > 
> >  Since I'm using 2.13 anyway, it's alike to me.  But it should be
> > discussed at the list, IMO.
> 
> Yep.  It won't hurt most of us kernel hackers very much but in particular
> the distribution people may want to comment.
> 
> So any comments?

Well, I think 2.13's a good idea, but it's very new.  I'd say that was
acceptable as long as you're looking at MIPS64 only, not at MIPS32. 

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer