minimum required binutils for ppc32?

minimum required binutils for ppc32?

[Christoph Hellwig]

What's the minimum required binutils version for ppc32 these days?

The debian kernel package ups it from 2.12.1 to 2.12.90.0.7, i.e. from
the first 2.12 maintaince release to one of hjl's later releases and
I wonder why it does that.  Either it's bogus and should be be dropped
or we should up it in mainline.

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: minimum required binutils for ppc32?

[Christian Kujau]

Christoph Hellwig schrieb:
| What's the minimum required binutils version for ppc32 these days?
|
| The debian kernel package ups it from 2.12.1 to 2.12.90.0.7, i.e. from
| the first 2.12 maintaince release to one of hjl's later releases and
| I wonder why it does that.  Either it's bogus and should be be dropped
| or we should up it in mainline.

well, the version of binutils in debian/woody is still
pool/main/b/binutils/binutils_2.12.90.0.1-4_powerpc.deb.
and kernel-source packages usually only depend on "binutils" from the
same release (e.g. "stable"), no version number is given in "Depends:"

the unstable changelog reveals:
binutils (2.12.90.0.7-1) unstable; urgency=low


~  * New upstream version (synced with CVS 2002-04-23).
~  * Upstream: ELF EH frame bug fix
~  * Upstream: MIPS ELF visibility bug fix
~  * Upstream: Bug fixes for ELF/sparc
~  * Upstream: Bug fixes for ELF/cris
~  * Upstream: Fix linking a.out relocatable files
~    with ELF
~  * Upstream: Fix a PPC altivec assembler bug
~  * Numerous upstream changes since I have
~    deliberately not updated in awhile so that
~    I could stabilise the package for woody
~    release
~  * Fixed a glaring typo in the Debian additions
~    to the version string.
~  * Upstream incorporated --oformat
~    documentation patch; removed.
~  * Added a patch from upstream involving
~    relative relocs on Alpha
~  * Removed configure.info-[1-3] from -doc
~    (closes: Bug#146205)
- --------------
so, there is some "PPC altivec assembler bug", but no bug#, don't what
this is about.

speaking of binutils, i'm currently unable to compile binutils-2.14.92
for ppc32 (hence the posting of "Error: Unrecognized opcode: `dssall'"
in linuxppc-dev)...


Christian.
- --
BOFH excuse #426:

internet is needed to catch the etherbunny

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: minimum required binutils for ppc32?

[Tom Rini]

On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 11:58:26AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

> What's the minimum required binutils version for ppc32 these days?

For 2.6, it is 2.12.1 or the corresponding hjl version which knows about
'dssall', for classic (CONFIG_6xx=y) PPC.  I don't believe an exact
minimum has been nailed down for 40x/44x.

> The debian kernel package ups it from 2.12.1 to 2.12.90.0.7, i.e. from
> the first 2.12 maintaince release to one of hjl's later releases and
> I wonder why it does that.  Either it's bogus and should be be dropped
> or we should up it in mainline.

AFAIK, it is bogus.  Unless there's a reason for it in the debian BTS.

--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: minimum required binutils for ppc32?

[Paul Mackerras]

Christoph Hellwig writes:

> What's the minimum required binutils version for ppc32 these days?

Whichever version is the first to handle the altivec instructions.

> The debian kernel package ups it from 2.12.1 to 2.12.90.0.7, i.e. from
> the first 2.12 maintaince release to one of hjl's later releases and
> I wonder why it does that.  Either it's bogus and should be be dropped
> or we should up it in mainline.

Seems bogus to me.

BTW, there is a recent change in binutils which make gas *not*
recognize the altivec instructions by default.  (This was to fix the
disassembler, go figure.)  We should probably add -many to ASFLAGS.

Paul.

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/