On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 1:48 PM, Linus Walleij <linus.wall...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 10:28 PM, Lukasz Majewski <lu...@denx.de> wrote:
>>>> It would also be helpful
>>>> to test whether the -march=armv4t/--fix-v4bx workaround produces
>>>> working binaries for you, in that case you could report to the gcc
>>>> developers that the removal of armv4 can continue but that
>>>> the --fix-v4bx option in ld needs to stay around.
>>>
>>> I may ask this issue on OE/Yocto mailing list as well....
>>
>> To clarify, the only affected platforms are those based on either
>> DEC/Intel StrongARM or Faraday FA526, i.e. EBSA-110,
>> FootBridge, RPC, SA1100, Moxart and Gemini.
>
> It's a bit unfortunate since there are users and active contributors to
> these architectures, I think the OE community is being missed out
> just because they "are not Debian". :/
IIRC, OE already uses the --fix-v4bx workaround. I had an older patch
to do the same in the kernel, let me resend it now, so you can try it
and see if that works for you.
Arnd
