new binutils needed for arm in 3.12-rc1

Rob Landley [off-list ref] writes:

On 09/24/2013 09:07:57 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:

quoted

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 gnuisms just because they're there and nobody else is  
regression testing against them, not because they actually add anything.

Since when is assembling the instructions correctly, as specified in the
arch ref, and not in some other random way a gnuism?

-- 
M?ns Rullg?rd
mans at mansr.com