From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from oss.sgi.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g7KElYEC028599 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 07:47:34 -0700 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.5/8.12.3/Submit) id g7KElYmD028598 for linux-mips-outgoing; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 07:47:34 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: oss.sgi.com: majordomo set sender to owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com using -f Received: from crack.them.org (mail@crack.them.org [65.125.64.184]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with SMTP id g7KElSEC028589 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 07:47:28 -0700 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17hAKm-0005KB-00; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 09:50:16 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17hALL-0004Xw-00; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 10:50:51 -0400 Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 10:50:51 -0400 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Ralf Baechle Cc: linux-mips@oss.sgi.com, "Maciej W. Rozycki" Subject: Re: New binutils for kernel Message-ID: <20020820145051.GA17311@nevyn.them.org> References: <20020819171238.A7457@linux-mips.org> <20020820162959.A26852@linux-mips.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020820162959.A26852@linux-mips.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO version=2.20 X-Spam-Level: Sender: owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk 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