From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 18:43:00 -0700 From: Tom Rini To: Olaf Hering , Paul Mackerras Cc: Andrew Morton , linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix missing option in binutils version check Message-ID: <20040709014300.GO23135@smtp.west.cox.net> References: <20040614180734.GB3247@suse.de> <20040614205537.GB7798@smtp.west.cox.net> <20040614211931.GA21113@suse.de> <20040615161258.GA14528@smtp.west.cox.net> <20040615172511.GA21667@suse.de> <20040615174648.GC14528@smtp.west.cox.net> <20040703222918.GA10425@suse.de> <20040704072350.GA7060@suse.de> <20040705183219.GI2146@smtp.west.cox.net> <20040709013429.GN23135@smtp.west.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20040709013429.GN23135@smtp.west.cox.net> Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 06:34:29PM -0700, Tom Rini wrote: [snip] > OK. After giving this a whirl (after a NAK from Matt, privately), it looks > like some versions of binutils don't make proper use of -many (in 2.14 it > will override ppc_cpu, and PPC_OPCODE_ANY doesn't look to be used). So > that brings us to the following patch. Olaf, can you please verify this > still works for you? Paul, is this OK with you? The other alternative, if we want to try and rely on -many working w/o other flags passed is to depend on binutils-2.15* or newer. -- Tom Rini http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/