This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Require binutils 2.20 or later to build glibc
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at systemhalted dot org>
- To: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>
- Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 18:56:52 -0500
- Subject: Re: Require binutils 2.20 or later to build glibc
- Authentication-results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of patofiero@gmail.com designates 10.236.175.36 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=patofiero@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=patofiero@gmail.com
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1202242216420.2811@digraph.polyomino.org.uk><20120224230247.D0DF92C0A1@topped-with-meat.com>
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Roland McGrath <roland@hack.frob.com> wrote:
> In its own right, I think 2.20 seems like a reasonable baseline.
> But it seems suspect that we're requiring a binutils years newer
> than the GCC we require. ?Perhaps it would be OK to require 4.4.3
> by now, which meshes better with 2.20. ?But I'm not at all sure.
>
> I vaguely recall people posting before that requiring too new
> a binutils was burdensome for some platform or other, but I don't
> recall the details. ?I think we should at least get each arch maintainer
> to weigh in explicitly before deciding.
>
> Independently, I think it's a bit dubious that we're requiring IFUNC
> support unconditionally. ?(I hadn't noticed we used it outside of
> multiarch.) ?Perhaps my tendencies move too slowly, but it still feels a
> might newfangled.
For HPPA we want the absolute newest binutils possible since we have
some cache aliasing issues which are fixed by newer binutils.
Cheers,
Carlos.