On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 06:34:27PM +0200, Peter J. Philipp wrote: > 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
I believe they were using the llvm ld and such. I'll ask. -ml
