From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 13:55:37 -0700 From: Tom Rini To: Olaf Hering Cc: Andrew Morton , linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix missing option in binutils version check Message-ID: <20040614205537.GB7798@smtp.west.cox.net> 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> <20040614173841.GA3247@suse.de> <20040614180734.GB3247@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20040614180734.GB3247@suse.de> Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 08:07:34PM +0200, Olaf Hering wrote: > On Mon, Jun 14, Olaf Hering wrote: > > > > > 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. > > We should fix it like that: > > diff -purN linux-2.6.7-rc3-bk6.orig/arch/ppc/Makefile linux-2.6.7-rc3-bk6/arch/ppc/Makefile > --- linux-2.6.7-rc3-bk6.orig/arch/ppc/Makefile 2004-06-14 15:23:35.000000000 +0200 > +++ linux-2.6.7-rc3-bk6/arch/ppc/Makefile 2004-06-14 19:46:25.336997085 +0200 > @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ CPP = $(CC) -E $(CFLAGS) > > cflags-$(CONFIG_4xx) += -Wa,-m405 > cflags-$(CONFIG_PPC64BRIDGE) += -Wa,-mppc64bridge > +cflags-$(CONFIG_ALTIVEC) += -Wa,-maltivec > > CFLAGS += $(cflags-y) ... except that we can have 'dssall' even when CONFIG_ALTIVEC=n, so we need it really on CONFIG_6xx. But more importantly, why did you break the check to stop people with broken binutils from trying to compile the kernel, and not fix the rest of the breakage ? -- Tom Rini http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/