This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] PPC fix build break caused by VMX, 2nd try
- From: Steve Munroe <sjmunroe at us dot ibm dot com>
- To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>, Ulrich Drepper <drepper at redhat dot com>
- Cc: dgm69 at us dot ibm dot com, libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 09:59:40 -0500
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] PPC fix build break caused by VMX, 2nd try
Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> wrote on 05/25/2004 08:38:09 PM:
> On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 05:06:06PM -0500, Steve Munroe wrote:
> > Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com> wrote on 05/25/2004 04:48:07 PM:
> >
> > > Steve Munroe wrote:
> > >
> > > > OK this patch uses .machine "altivec"
> > >
> > > Again, which binutils ve5rsion is required?
> > >
> >
> > Looks like 2.12 binutils for -maltivec. The change went in 2001-10-12.
> >
> > .machine "any" has a longer history (from 1995) but is not as specific
to
> > the problem.
>
> That's incorrect. -many is from 1995. .machine is from:
> 2003-11-22 Alan Modra <amodra@bigpond.net.au>
>
> * config/tc-ppc.c (parse_cpu): New function, broken out from..
> (md_parse_option): ..here.
> (ppc_setup_opcodes): New function, broken out from..
> (md_begin): ..here.
> (ppc_machine): Implement .machine pseudo op.
>
> It requires binutils 2.15.
>
Dang, I was looking at the dates the options were enabled, not for at the
date of .machine itself.
How far back does glibc cvs head need to go relative to binutils?
I think we should revert the 2nd patch and use the first patch, This will
work for binutils back to 2.12
Steven J. Munroe
Linux on Power Toolchain Architect
IBM Corporation, Linux Technology Center