Re: new binutils needed for arm in 3.12-rc1

Rob Landley
2013-09-26T22:50:23Z

On 09/25/2013 03:49:07 PM, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:23:06AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> >> On 09/24/2013 09:07:57 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> >>> It could be as simple as making gas accept an extra argument for
> >>> instructions like dsb and just ignoring it.
> >>
> >> So you prefer I come up with the reversion patches locally and
> _not_
> >> send them upstream?
> >
> > This is a silly attitude. What you're effectively saying is that we
> > are never allowed to use any future ARM instructions in any Linux
> > kernel because that might break your precious assembler.
> >
> > I've got news for you. We're *not* going to listen to that
> argument.
> >
> > END OF DISCUSSION (everything else is just a waste of time.)

Who am I to argue with capital letters?

> I fully agree.

Actually, I thought this was an armv5l regression. (My objection was to
requiring a newer toolchain for architectures that built fine under the
old one. My attention was attracted by the proposed patch to
Documentation/changes with a global updated for required binutils
version.)

I've since had a chance to confirm the armv5 build break I saw was just
normal mid-rc1 noise (since fixed) and this set of patches just applies
to armv7, which already required a newer binutils, so objection
withdrawn.

Rob