Hi!
Given you're not upgrading your binutils anymore that means
you'll have to apply that patch only once instead of having to
apply it
to every kernel upgrade.
Indeed. Patching my own toolchain isn't really a problem. My
objection was to the Documentation patch telling the world at large
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven
ge...@linux-m68k.org wrote:
Hi Rob,
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:13 AM, Rob Landley r...@landley.net wrote:
Some of us can't ship GPLv3 binaries and are looking forward to the day LLVM
or some such provides a complete solution.
Sorry, I
Hi!
On Thu 2013-09-26 17:48:29, Rob Landley wrote:
On 09/25/2013 11:13:17 AM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2013, Rob Landley wrote:
On 09/24/2013 09:07:57 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
I'd strongly suggest you make your binutils compatible with newer
instruction syntax instead of
Hi Rob,
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:13 AM, Rob Landley r...@landley.net wrote:
Some of us can't ship GPLv3 binaries and are looking forward to the day LLVM
or some such provides a complete solution.
Sorry, I didn't have a coffee yet, but which subtility am I missing
that prohibits
you from
On 09/25/2013 10:52:44 AM, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Rob Landley r...@landley.net writes:
On 09/24/2013 09:07:57 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
I'd strongly suggest you make your binutils compatible with newer
instruction syntax instead of making the kernel more complex.
Meaning I play whack-a-mole
Rob Landley r...@landley.net writes:
On 09/25/2013 10:52:44 AM, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Rob Landley r...@landley.net writes:
On 09/24/2013 09:07:57 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
I'd strongly suggest you make your binutils compatible with newer
instruction syntax instead of making the kernel
On 09/25/2013 11:13:17 AM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2013, Rob Landley wrote:
On 09/24/2013 09:07:57 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
I'd strongly suggest you make your binutils compatible with newer
instruction syntax instead of making the kernel more complex.
Meaning I play
On 09/25/2013 03:49:07 PM, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Russell King - ARM Linux li...@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
On 09/24/2013 09:07:57 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2013, Rob Landley wrote:
On 09/24/2013 04:48:00 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
Now, if you feel strongly about this, we _could_ introduce a
CONFIG_OLD_BINUTILS and give everyone their cake - but it will be
fragile. Not
Rob Landley r...@landley.net writes:
On 09/24/2013 09:07:57 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
I'd strongly suggest you make your binutils compatible with newer
instruction syntax instead of making the kernel more complex.
Meaning I play whack-a-mole as this becomes permission to depend on
endless
On Wed, 25 Sep 2013, Rob Landley wrote:
On 09/24/2013 09:07:57 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
I'd strongly suggest you make your binutils compatible with newer
instruction syntax instead of making the kernel more complex.
Meaning I play whack-a-mole as this becomes permission to depend on
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_
Russell King - ARM Linux li...@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
Rob Landley r...@landley.net writes:
On 09/23/2013 06:59:17 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
During 3.12-rc, Will Deacon introduced code into arch/arm that
requires binutils 2.22.
Um, my toolchain is using the last gplv2 snapshot of binutils out of
git, which is just past 2.17 and can build armv7
On 09/24/2013 07:11:38 AM, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Rob Landley r...@landley.net writes:
On 09/23/2013 06:59:17 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
During 3.12-rc, Will Deacon introduced code into arch/arm that
requires binutils 2.22.
Um, my toolchain is using the last gplv2 snapshot of binutils out of
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 04:23:48PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
What value is there in requiring the new toolchain? From what I could
see of the commits it was micro-optimizations around memory barriers.
*shrug* I can revert the patch locally, or patch the extra instruction
into my
On 09/24/2013 04:48:00 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 04:23:48PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
What value is there in requiring the new toolchain? From what I
could
see of the commits it was micro-optimizations around memory
barriers.
*shrug* I can revert the
On Tue, 24 Sep 2013, Rob Landley wrote:
On 09/24/2013 04:48:00 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
Now, if you feel strongly about this, we _could_ introduce a
CONFIG_OLD_BINUTILS and give everyone their cake - but it will be
fragile. Not everyone will remember to get that right, because
During 3.12-rc, Will Deacon introduced code into arch/arm that
requires binutils 2.22.
Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek pa...@ucw.cz
---
Or that changes should be reverted. I have updated my buildsystem on main
machine, but ... it seems that debian-cross repository does not
contain new
On 09/23/2013 06:59:17 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
During 3.12-rc, Will Deacon introduced code into arch/arm that
requires binutils 2.22.
Um, my toolchain is using the last gplv2 snapshot of binutils out of
git, which is just past 2.17 and can build armv7 (but not armv8).
Binutils 2.12-2.22 is
On 09/23/2013 06:59:17 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
During 3.12-rc, Will Deacon introduced code into arch/arm that
requires binutils 2.22.
I'm sorry, it occurs to me I should have been more explicit:
HH! KILL IT WITH
FIRE!!!
Rob--
To
21 matches
Mail list logo
