On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 5:12 AM, Mark Kettenis
wrote:
> > Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 11:04:43 +0100
> > From: Patrick Wildt
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 02:16:25PM -0500, Ted Unangst wrote:
> > > Patrick Wildt wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Maybe they want to support older binutils that do not support the
> Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 11:04:43 +0100
> From: Patrick Wildt
>
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 02:16:25PM -0500, Ted Unangst wrote:
> > Patrick Wildt wrote:
> > >
> > > Maybe they want to support older binutils that do not support the unified
> > > syntax?
> > > What's our policy there?
> >
> > Open
On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 02:16:25PM -0500, Ted Unangst wrote:
> Patrick Wildt wrote:
> >
> > Maybe they want to support older binutils that do not support the unified
> > syntax?
> > What's our policy there?
>
> OpenBSD is just about the oldest binutils around. I wouldn't worry about
> anything o
Patrick Wildt wrote:
>
> Maybe they want to support older binutils that do not support the unified
> syntax?
> What's our policy there?
OpenBSD is just about the oldest binutils around. I wouldn't worry about
anything older than what we have in base.
Hi,
clang complains about the ARM assembly, since it expects the conditional
branch instructions to state the condition (in this case pl/ne) after
the "b" for branch. We also need to state that we're using the unified
syntax, so that binutils 2.17 likes it as well.
OpenSSL fixed that issue in an
