Re: [PATCH] fix missing option in binutils version check
flat view
From: Tom Rini <hidden>
Date: 2004-06-14 20:55:37
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 08:07:34PM +0200, Olaf Hering wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
On Mon, Jun 14, Olaf Hering wrote:quoted
On Mon, Jun 14, Tom Rini wrote:quoted
quoted
Everyone who wants to build the latest and greatest kernel can also update binutils, its a no-brainer.... which does, or doesn't compile a kernel? Does the latest and greatest binutils and gcc automatically pass down -many, or does it fail to compile because the assembler needs -many, but it's not being passed along. That's what I asked.plain gcc 3.2.3 + binutils 2.15.91.0.1 is a challenge, because it passes -mppc instead of -many.We should fix it like that: diff -purN linux-2.6.7-rc3-bk6.orig/arch/ppc/Makefile linux-2.6.7-rc3-bk6/arch/ppc/Makefile--- linux-2.6.7-rc3-bk6.orig/arch/ppc/Makefile 2004-06-14 15:23:35.000000000 +0200 +++ linux-2.6.7-rc3-bk6/arch/ppc/Makefile 2004-06-14 19:46:25.336997085 +0200@@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ CPP = $(CC) -E $(CFLAGS) cflags-$(CONFIG_4xx) += -Wa,-m405 cflags-$(CONFIG_PPC64BRIDGE) += -Wa,-mppc64bridge +cflags-$(CONFIG_ALTIVEC) += -Wa,-maltivec CFLAGS += $(cflags-y)
... except that we can have 'dssall' even when CONFIG_ALTIVEC=n, so we need it really on CONFIG_6xx. But more importantly, why did you break the check to stop people with broken binutils from trying to compile the kernel, and not fix the rest of the breakage ? -- Tom Rini http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/