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 g7KFQOEC030520 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 08:26:24 -0700 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.5/8.12.3/Submit) id g7KFQOj0030519 for linux-mips-outgoing; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 08:26:24 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: oss.sgi.com: majordomo set sender to owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com using -f Received: from dea.linux-mips.net (shaft16-f39.dialo.tiscali.de [62.246.16.39]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with SMTP id g7KFQ7EC030499 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 08:26:17 -0700 Received: (from ralf@localhost) by dea.linux-mips.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7KFHZv24966; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 17:17:35 +0200 Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 17:17:35 +0200 From: Ralf Baechle To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: "Maciej W. Rozycki" , linux-mips@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: New binutils for kernel Message-ID: <20020820171735.A24832@linux-mips.org> References: <20020820165835.B26852@linux-mips.org> <20020820151135.GA23807@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20020820151135.GA23807@nevyn.them.org>; from dan@debian.org on Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 11:11:35AM -0400 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 11:11:35AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > > > Such considerations have kept us back at antique levels of binutils. And > > > juggling with several different versions for userland, and two kernel > > > flavours is evil ... > > > > Any version since 2.11, possibly older, should work just fine for 32-bit > > MIPS. I don't think there are any significant interface changes between > > 2.11 and 2.13, so if 2.13 works then 2.11 will not bail out either. Thus > > there is no need to force 2.13 for 32-bit MIPS, but I think it is > > acceptable to stop caring about versions older than 2.11 in the nearby > > future. > > Sure. Sounds like we'll then recommend 2.13 for the fearless and 64-bit developers and 2.11 for everybody else. Ralf