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: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 13:11:38 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20130923235917.GA30967@amd.pavel.ucw.cz> <1379988800.1974.68@driftwood> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1379988800.1974.68@driftwood> (Rob Landley's message of "Mon, 23 Sep 2013 21:13:20 -0500") Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Rob Landley Cc: Pavel Machek , Will Deacon , Trivial patch monkey , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Catalin Marinas List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org Rob Landley writes: > On 09/23/2013 06:59:17 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: >> During 3.12-rc, Will Deacon introduced code into arch/arm that >> requires binutils 2.22. > > Um, my toolchain is using the last gplv2 snapshot of binutils out of = =20 > git, which is just past 2.17 and can build armv7 (but not armv8). > > Binutils 2.12->2.22 is quite the jump. (11 years.) I'd except some =20 > thought to have gone into that? Possibly a mention of it? I seriously doubt that 2.12 still works at all (I doubt it can even be built on a modern system). In my experience, binutils older than 2.19 or so rarely works properly for ARM. What value is there in maintaining compatibility with a truly ancient binutils version anyway? --=20 M=E5ns Rullg=E5rd mans@mansr.com