Re: What binutils version is compatible with gcc 3.3 ?

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>]

On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 08:16:57AM -0700, Mark D. Baushke wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> writes:
> 
> > On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 07:03:35AM -0700, Mark D. Baushke wrote:
> > > Hi Folks,
> > > 
> > You really can not do combined builds using released versions.  As
> > you've found, shared files drift too much.
> 
> Well, I suspect it *could* be done, provided that there is a release of
> each of the needed versions actually released.
> 
> (The odd thing to me is that the binutils-2_14-branch seems to mostly
> work, but the top-of-tree trunk does not.)
> 
> So, is there any clue as to when binutils 2.14 might be released?
> How stable is it at present?

When it's ready.  I'm hoping for a new prerelease tonight.

> > Although, in general it should work if you just take the newest version
> > of each file.  libiberty is always backwards compatible.
> 
> Hmmm... a noble goal, but the differences between gcc-3.3 and
> binutils-2.13.2.1 shows that make-relative-prefix.c ad physmem.c were
> added to gcc-3.3, but that cplus-dem.c had main() ripped out of it
> which would mean that trying to build binutils-2.13.2.1 would fail
> when that main() was found missing in the building of c++filt.
> 
> Sigh.

cplus-dem was a (controversial) exception.

No, seriously.  Either use a CVS snapshot from the same day, or else
build the pieces separately.  It's a pain but not as much of a pain as
this.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer