Re: HEADS UP: Merge of binutils 2.17

2011-02-19 Thread Dimitry Andric
On 2011-02-19 15:35, Dimitry Andric wrote: Okay, binutils 2.17.50 has now been merged to head in r218822. If you compile kernels by hand, make sure to first run "make buildworld", or at least "make kernel-toolchain", to get a new ld in /usr/obj. Otherwise, linking your kernel might fail. Note

Re: HEADS UP: Merge of binutils 2.17

2011-02-19 Thread Dimitry Andric
On 2011-02-16 21:00, Dimitry Andric wrote: So I plan to merge the binutils-2.17 project branch to head this weekend, if there are no further objections. If you have found a showstopper bug, please let me know ASAP. :) Okay, binutils 2.17.50 has now been merged to head in r218822. If you compi

Re: HEADS UP: Merge of binutils 2.17

2011-02-16 Thread Dimitry Andric
On 2011-01-07 21:57, Dimitry Andric wrote: For some time, I have been working on importing a newer version of binutils into -current. This updates our quite ancient 2.15 version to the last version available under GPLv2, 2.17.50. The binutils 2.17 project branch has been cooking for quite some

Re: HEADS UP: Merge of binutils 2.17

2011-01-10 Thread Anton Shterenlikht
On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 09:57:47PM +0100, Dimitry Andric wrote: > Hi all, This is slightly OT. I get this error on ia64 which seems to be binutils related (still 2.15). I just thought if it is, then it might have an effect on 2.17 as well. The error seems to be ia64 specific. On amd64 and sparc64

Re: HEADS UP: Merge of binutils 2.17

2011-01-09 Thread Pav Lucistnik
Erik Cederstrand píše v ne 09. 01. 2011 v 00:10 +0100: > I was pretty sure I couldn't improve anything with 5 minutes of > thinking. I'm glad the most obvious things have already been done, and > I'm sure you and others have put a lot of effort into this. My > question was more what, if anything,

Re: HEADS UP: Merge of binutils 2.17

2011-01-08 Thread Garrett Cooper
On Jan 8, 2011, at 3:10 PM, Erik Cederstrand wrote: > Hello Pav, > > Den 08/01/2011 kl. 20.34 skrev Pav Lucistnik: > >> Package cluster is quite clever, akshully, and since this is OT here, >> just terse comments > > Sorry, replied to a bad message... redirecting to current@ > 1. adding S

Re: HEADS UP: Merge of binutils 2.17

2011-01-08 Thread Erik Cederstrand
Hello Pav, Den 08/01/2011 kl. 20.34 skrev Pav Lucistnik: > Package cluster is quite clever, akshully, and since this is OT here, > just terse comments Sorry, replied to a bad message... redirecting to current@ >>> 1. adding SSD disks > > irrelevant because of bullet 2. > >>> 2. source and des

Re: HEADS UP: Merge of binutils 2.17

2011-01-08 Thread Dimitry Andric
On 2011-01-08 01:54, Anonymous wrote: Looks like lang/sbcl doesn't like new ld(1), here on amd64. Same error when building using devel/binutils. Can you reproduce? ... //doing warm init - compilation phase This is SBCL 1.0.43, an implementation of ANSI Common Lisp. More information abo

Re: HEADS UP: Merge of binutils 2.17

2011-01-08 Thread Dimitry Andric
On 2011-01-07 22:54, Ade Lovett wrote: Most likely it's low priority given all the other exp-runs that affect 7.x/8.x, tweaking things for an 6.x-EOL-tagged tree, and a bunch of other infrastructure stuff. Not to mention the impending 7- and 8- RELEASEs. I understand, and there will probably a

Package building for -current (Was: Re: HEADS UP: Merge of binutils 2.17)

2011-01-07 Thread Doug Barton
I'm happy to have a discussion about this topic either publicly, or privately, your choice. Since your message went to -current@, that's where my reply is headed. I've also cc'ed ports@ since the topic is relevant there too. Meanwhile, I've snipped some of what you wrote to focus on the issues

Re: HEADS UP: Merge of binutils 2.17

2011-01-07 Thread Garrett Cooper
On Jan 7, 2011, at 9:48 PM, Ade Lovett wrote: > > On Jan 07, 2011, at 17:37 , Doug Barton wrote: >> On 01/07/2011 13:54, Ade Lovett wrote: >>> >>> Most likely it's low priority given all the other exp-runs that >>> affect 7.x/8.x, tweaking things for an 6.x-EOL-tagged tree, and a >>> bunch of ot

Re: HEADS UP: Merge of binutils 2.17

2011-01-07 Thread Ade Lovett
On Jan 07, 2011, at 17:37 , Doug Barton wrote: > On 01/07/2011 13:54, Ade Lovett wrote: >> >> Most likely it's low priority given all the other exp-runs that >> affect 7.x/8.x, tweaking things for an 6.x-EOL-tagged tree, and a >> bunch of other infrastructure stuff. Not to mention the impending

Re: HEADS UP: Merge of binutils 2.17

2011-01-07 Thread Anonymous
Dimitry Andric writes: [...] > Please report any problems with either the base system, or ports that > come up as a result of this binutils update. Looks like lang/sbcl doesn't like new ld(1), here on amd64. Same error when building using devel/binutils. Can you reproduce? $ make [...] ob

Re: HEADS UP: Merge of binutils 2.17

2011-01-07 Thread Doug Barton
On 01/07/2011 13:54, Ade Lovett wrote: On Jan 07, 2011, at 15:41 , Doug Barton wrote: On 01/07/2011 13:29, Dimitry Andric wrote: Yes, I submitted an exp-run request Nov 15, 2010: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=152268 Unfortunately, there has been little or no interest. Fair enou

Re: HEADS UP: Merge of binutils 2.17

2011-01-07 Thread Ade Lovett
On Jan 07, 2011, at 15:41 , Doug Barton wrote: > On 01/07/2011 13:29, Dimitry Andric wrote: >> >> Yes, I submitted an exp-run request Nov 15, 2010: >> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=152268 >> Unfortunately, there has been little or no interest. > > Fair enough, that sounds to me like

Re: HEADS UP: Merge of binutils 2.17

2011-01-07 Thread Doug Barton
On 01/07/2011 13:29, Dimitry Andric wrote: On 2011-01-07 22:22, Doug Barton wrote: This is much appreciated work of course, but I'm wondering if you've requested an experimental ports run with the change? It would be good to know how much damage to expect before the change gets committed. Yes,

Re: HEADS UP: Merge of binutils 2.17

2011-01-07 Thread Dimitry Andric
On 2011-01-07 22:21, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote: http://svn.freebsd.org/base/projects/binutils-2.17/ all of the Text files are seen as Binary files by Firefox in Linux Try http://svn.freebsd.org/viewvc/base/projects/binutils-2.17/ instead. For checking out the source tree, please use a Subve

Re: HEADS UP: Merge of binutils 2.17

2011-01-07 Thread Dimitry Andric
On 2011-01-07 22:22, Doug Barton wrote: This is much appreciated work of course, but I'm wondering if you've requested an experimental ports run with the change? It would be good to know how much damage to expect before the change gets committed. Yes, I submitted an exp-run request Nov 15, 2010

Re: HEADS UP: Merge of binutils 2.17

2011-01-07 Thread Doug Barton
On 01/07/2011 12:57, Dimitry Andric wrote: Please report any problems with either the base system, or ports that come up as a result of this binutils update. This is much appreciated work of course, but I'm wondering if you've requested an experimental ports run with the change? It would be g

Re: HEADS UP: Merge of binutils 2.17

2011-01-07 Thread Mehmet Erol Sanliturk
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Dimitry Andric wrote: > Hi all, > > For some time, I have been working on importing a newer version of > binutils into -current. This updates our quite ancient 2.15 version to > the last version available under GPLv2, 2.17.50. (Special thanks to > Nathan Whitehor

HEADS UP: Merge of binutils 2.17

2011-01-07 Thread Dimitry Andric
Hi all, For some time, I have been working on importing a newer version of binutils into -current. This updates our quite ancient 2.15 version to the last version available under GPLv2, 2.17.50. (Special thanks to Nathan Whitehorn for his valuable feedback.) As far as I know, all issues buildi