From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?= Subject: Re: new binutils needed for arm in 3.12-rc1 Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 16:52:44 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1380122586.1974.84@driftwood> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1380122586.1974.84@driftwood> (Rob Landley's message of "Wed, 25 Sep 2013 10:23:06 -0500") Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Rob Landley Cc: Nicolas Pitre , Russell King - ARM Linux , =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?= , Andrew Morton , Trivial patch monkey , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Pavel Machek , "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" , Linus Torvalds , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.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 =20 > endless new gnuisms just because they're there and nobody else is =20 > regression testing against them, not because they actually add anythi= ng. Since when is assembling the instructions correctly, as specified in th= e arch ref, and not in some other random way a gnuism? --=20 M=E5ns Rullg=E5rd mans@mansr.com