From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 19:38:41 +0200 From: Olaf Hering To: Tom Rini Cc: Andrew Morton , linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix missing option in binutils version check Message-ID: <20040614173841.GA3247@suse.de> References: <20040605074341.GA15279@suse.de> <20040608112556.GA21447@suse.de> <20040610001605.GH18212@smtp.west.cox.net> <20040614091530.GA18482@suse.de> <20040614162359.GA7798@smtp.west.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 In-Reply-To: <20040614162359.GA7798@smtp.west.cox.net> Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Mon, Jun 14, Tom Rini wrote: > > Everyone who wants to build the latest and greatest kernel can also > > update binutils, its a no-brainer. > > ... which does, or doesn't compile a kernel? Does the latest and > greatest binutils and gcc automatically pass down -many, or does it fail > to compile because the assembler needs -many, but it's not being passed > along. That's what I asked. plain gcc 3.2.3 + binutils 2.15.91.0.1 is a challenge, because it passes -mppc instead of -many. > And everyone who wants to build the latest and greatest stable kernel > should probably stick with a stable release of binutils and gcc. But > that's just my 2 cents. :) Lets just declare the hammer branch as stable, and older junk as unstable. -- USB is for mice, FireWire is for men! sUse lINUX ag, nÜRNBERG ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/