On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 13:15:59 +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2017/07/16 13:35, Karel Gardas wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Stuart Henderson <s...@spacehopper.org> > > wrote: > > > On 2017/07/15 16:37, Pascal Stumpf wrote: > > >> This is a port of the latest version of GAS from GNU binutils, at the > > >> moment for the sole purpose of providing an assembler for the upcoming > > >> GCC 7 port on Aarch64. > > >> > > >> ok? > > > > > > Is this needed when we have gas in arm-none-eabi-binutils? (kettenis has > > > an update pending if this just needs a newer version). > > > > I think so, since arm-none-eabi is probably just for AArch32 and also > > It's not just for aarch32, there's an aarch64 flavour. > > > specifically bare metal development, while what Pascal Stumpf provides > > is gas for aarch64-openbsd platform. IIRC binutils are always compiled > > for specific ABI and you can't simply retarget based on some command > > line options (except in very specific cases on specific variant of one > > platform). > > > > On 2017/07/16 14:07, Pascal Stumpf wrote: > > Hmm, I think I'd consider that abuse of a port that was originally > > intended for cross-development, not everyday consumption by a "regular" > > toolchain. > > Fair enough.. I'm just trying to keep a lid on the number of different > binutils-based ports that we have. > > > Also, we'll need this port anyway as soon as other > > architectures switch to clang. > > Better to remove the ONLY_FOR_ARCHS then (also we won't notice if it's > broken unless it's enabled for an arch which we routinely build packages > for, aarch64 isn't stable enough for that yet) >
Okay, but then the info page conflicts with base. Do we not care or rename everything to "eas"/"egas"?
