On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 08:52:48AM -0700, Mike Larkin wrote: > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 04:26:37PM +0200, Peter J. Philipp wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I was wondering if binutils-2.17 will be that version for the next > > foreseeable > > future? Reason being is that there is backports to RISCV's binutils but > > they > > don't go that low to 2.17. Since I'm lazy, I don't really want to port > > binutils to 2.17 for any architecture if it's not already done so. > > Unfortunately I only invested a handful of days looking into the problem and > > just as many procrastinating around this. > > > > I lost contact to the riscv group, but if I rejoin them I'd like to give > > them > > something and not just look happy. :-) > > > > Peace. > > -peter > > Any idea why you feel this is needed? After all, the tree in that repo already > builds cleanly without needing to do this. > > Ps that workspace is still open, just a bit idle the last few months. > > -ml
Hi Mike, How do you build the userland tree? Do you hash out the binutils part? I know there is the binutils that I think Mars put together, but it's not 2.17, (working off memory here). I'll have to look for my credentials for the riscv groups chat. I must have lost the cookie and url completion from my browser. When I find that I'll be back. Best Regards, -peter
