On 03/20/16 14:41, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 04:29:15PM +0000, Nick Hudson wrote:
Is there a PR that describes the clang problem?
I gave you a detailed explination why the old version is a problem. So
far I have seen no real justification for the change, other than some
mumblings about ld mishandling weak symbols. That seems to be a pretty
clear cut case for a revert and going back to the design board to
understand why rump started failing with new binutils.
I'm old and forgetful and need a PR.
I think at the moment it's a case of least used gets left broken until
all problems are understood
Joerg
Nick
