On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven
wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:13 AM, Rob Landley wrote:
>> Some of us can't ship GPLv3 binaries and are looking forward to the day LLVM
>> or some such provides a complete solution.
>
> Sorry, I didn't have a coffee yet, but whi
Hi!
> >Given you're not upgrading your binutils anymore that means
> >you'll have to apply that patch only once instead of having to
> >apply it
> >to every kernel upgrade.
>
> Indeed. Patching my own toolchain isn't really a problem. My
> objection was to the Documentation patch telling the worl
Hi!
On Thu 2013-09-26 17:48:29, Rob Landley wrote:
> On 09/25/2013 11:13:17 AM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> >On Wed, 25 Sep 2013, Rob Landley wrote:
> >
> >> On 09/24/2013 09:07:57 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> >> > I'd strongly suggest you make your binutils compatible with newer
> >> > instruction synta
On 09/25/2013 03:49:07 PM, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Russell King - ARM Linux writes:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:23:06AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
>> On 09/24/2013 09:07:57 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>>> It could be as simple as making gas accept an extra argument for
>>> instructions like dsb and j
On 09/25/2013 11:13:17 AM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2013, Rob Landley wrote:
> On 09/24/2013 09:07:57 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > I'd strongly suggest you make your binutils compatible with newer
> > instruction syntax instead of making the kernel more complex.
>
> Meaning I play wha
Rob Landley writes:
> On 09/25/2013 10:52:44 AM, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> Rob Landley writes:
>>
>> > On 09/24/2013 09:07:57 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>> >> I'd strongly suggest you make your binutils compatible with newer
>> >> instruction syntax instead of making the kernel more complex.
>> >
>
On 09/25/2013 10:52:44 AM, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Rob Landley writes:
> On 09/24/2013 09:07:57 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>> I'd strongly suggest you make your binutils compatible with newer
>> instruction syntax instead of making the kernel more complex.
>
> Meaning I play whack-a-mole as this bec
Hi Rob,
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:13 AM, Rob Landley wrote:
> Some of us can't ship GPLv3 binaries and are looking forward to the day LLVM
> or some such provides a complete solution.
Sorry, I didn't have a coffee yet, but which subtility am I missing
that prohibits
you from shipping GPLv3 binar
Russell King - ARM Linux writes:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:23:06AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
>> On 09/24/2013 09:07:57 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>>> It could be as simple as making gas accept an extra argument for
>>> instructions like dsb and just ignoring it.
>>
>> So you prefer I come up wit
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:23:06AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> On 09/24/2013 09:07:57 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>> It could be as simple as making gas accept an extra argument for
>> instructions like dsb and just ignoring it.
>
> So you prefer I come up with the reversion patches locally and _not_
On Wed, 25 Sep 2013, Rob Landley wrote:
> On 09/24/2013 09:07:57 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > I'd strongly suggest you make your binutils compatible with newer
> > instruction syntax instead of making the kernel more complex.
>
> Meaning I play whack-a-mole as this becomes permission to depend on
Rob Landley writes:
> On 09/24/2013 09:07:57 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>> I'd strongly suggest you make your binutils compatible with newer
>> instruction syntax instead of making the kernel more complex.
>
> Meaning I play whack-a-mole as this becomes permission to depend on
> endless new gnuis
On 09/24/2013 09:07:57 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2013, Rob Landley wrote:
> On 09/24/2013 04:48:00 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > Now, if you feel strongly about this, we _could_ introduce a
> > CONFIG_OLD_BINUTILS and give everyone their cake - but it will be
> > fragile.
On Tue, 24 Sep 2013, Rob Landley wrote:
> On 09/24/2013 04:48:00 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > Now, if you feel strongly about this, we _could_ introduce a
> > CONFIG_OLD_BINUTILS and give everyone their cake - but it will be
> > fragile. Not everyone will remember to get that right, be
On 09/24/2013 04:48:00 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 04:23:48PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> What value is there in requiring the new toolchain? From what I
could
> see of the commits it was micro-optimizations around memory
barriers.
>
> *shrug* I can revert the
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 04:23:48PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> What value is there in requiring the new toolchain? From what I could
> see of the commits it was micro-optimizations around memory barriers.
>
> *shrug* I can revert the patch locally, or patch the extra instruction
> into my toolc
On 09/24/2013 07:11:38 AM, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Rob Landley writes:
> On 09/23/2013 06:59:17 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
>> During 3.12-rc, Will Deacon introduced code into arch/arm that
>> requires binutils 2.22.
>
> Um, my toolchain is using the last gplv2 snapshot of binutils out of
> git, which
Rob Landley writes:
> On 09/23/2013 06:59:17 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
>> During 3.12-rc, Will Deacon introduced code into arch/arm that
>> requires binutils 2.22.
>
> Um, my toolchain is using the last gplv2 snapshot of binutils out of
> git, which is just past 2.17 and can build armv7 (but not
On 09/23/2013 06:59:17 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
During 3.12-rc, Will Deacon introduced code into arch/arm that
requires binutils 2.22.
I'm sorry, it occurs to me I should have been more explicit:
HH! KILL IT WITH
FIRE!!!
Rob--
To unsubscr
On 09/23/2013 06:59:17 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
During 3.12-rc, Will Deacon introduced code into arch/arm that
requires binutils 2.22.
Um, my toolchain is using the last gplv2 snapshot of binutils out of
git, which is just past 2.17 and can build armv7 (but not armv8).
Binutils 2.12->2.22 is
20 matches
Mail list logo
