On 8/26/26 12:11, Cy Schubert wrote:
The binutils in our ports tree was the last binutils to support the Gold
linker. A previous exp-run for 2.45.1 showed us that a number of ports
failures were due to the missing linker.
I've decided to import binutils 2.47 into ports. I think the path forward
is to address ports failures due do the removed feature.
Do we want to rename the current binutils to binutils244 and import 2.47 as
binutils? Or would going "cold turkey" be advisable?
Is there a public link for the exp run so we can see how many + what
things break? How linkers work is a particular weakpoint for me so any
examples of identifying and fixing some of the issues already?
It sounds like the difference between 'cold turkey' and creating
binutils244 will both break stuff unless either a default to use 244 for
now is set or broken ports are patched to use it instead of the main
binutils. Any problems with some ports using 2.47 and others using 2.44?
Thank you for this work
