> Changing to gas *does* make sense because it reduces the number of
> different programs needed to compile the kernel. The problem with
> that is the bleeding edge version. It might be reasonable to ship two
> versions of the boot code and use the GAS one if a sufficiently
> up-to-date assembler is found.
>
> zw
This was the original motivation behind what was done: to remove one more
build time dependency from the kernel. Especially when that dependency is
on an assembler which isn't even really needed anymore because gas can do
the same job today).
I'm going to do some more testing and find out *exactly* what the minimum
binutils version is that will compile this beast properly. Will follow up
tomorrow. Sorry about the confusion surrounding that, I had only tested
the two binutils I've got on hand: Rh6's 2.9.1.0.23, and the latest
binutils from cvs (990801). I know see that my previous few messages were
a bit iffy regarding what version is absolutely needed. It seems I
didn't make clear that I have always had a workaround in my code for a
longstanding gas bug which has only recently been fixed in 2.9.5. That was
the only remaining issue which hadn't been fixed by the later releases of
2.9.1.
My bad :)
Chris Noe
(stiker@northlink.com)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/