Ah, there they are, the mythical seg patches. I just needed to follow the thread into the bug report.
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/devel/binutils/linux-2.4-seg-4.patch http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/devel/binutils/linux-2.6-seg-5.patch Sorry if I've seemed OT here, but anyone who builds the kernel is probably going to run into this eventually when they upgrade binutils. I assure you it will seem more interesting then. "The time has come," the Walrus said, "To talk of many things: Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax-- Of cabbages--and kings-- And why the sea is boiling hot-- And whether pigs have wings." (the walrus) NZG. On Wednesday 21 December 2005 5:21 pm, NZG wrote: > Hmm, it appears the the debian testing binutils "works fine" > but all previous kernel versions have invalid assembly code, which binutils > just now decided to start noticing. > > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-binutils/2005-04/msg00152.html > > It would be funny if I wasn't breaking all my stuff. > > This finger pointing has apparently been going on for several months. Has > anyone else run into this? What did you do? > > Are there kernel patches out there to "fix" all the old kernels somewhere? > I haven't found them yet. > Where would you put a fix to a kernel that only applies after binutils gets > changed. How does that kernel numbering work? > > thx, > NZG. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
