View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
lancelott Apprentice
Joined: 29 Mar 2005 Posts: 152
|
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 2:10 am Post subject: Does binutils-2.16 break anything? |
|
|
I heard before 2.16 went into ~ that it broke a lot of stuff, so I've been sticking to the latest 2.15 one. But I'm doing an emerge -e system/world today with gcc-3.4.4, so I'd like to know if it's safe to switch over to it. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
54815 n00b
Joined: 05 May 2004 Posts: 36
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
nxsty Veteran
Joined: 23 Jun 2004 Posts: 1556 Location: .se
|
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 7:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
2.16.90.0.1 and 2.16.90.0.2 where broken. The stable 2.16 relase seems to work fine though, I use it myself. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
asimon l33t
Joined: 27 Jun 2002 Posts: 979 Location: Germany, Old Europe
|
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 9:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
nxsty wrote: | 2.16.90.0.1 and 2.16.90.0.2 where broken. |
2.16.90.0.3 is broken on x86 too, it cannot build a kernel, 2.16-r1 seems to work okay so far. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
thersites Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 12 Oct 2004 Posts: 101 Location: South West China
|
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 9:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
2.16.90.0.3 builds my kernel with gcc-4.0.1_beta20050507 on x86 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
asimon l33t
Joined: 27 Jun 2002 Posts: 979 Location: Germany, Old Europe
|
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 9:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
thersites wrote: | 2.16.90.0.3 builds my kernel with gcc-4.0.1_beta20050507 on x86 |
Then it may depend on other parts of the toolchain, kernel configuration, use flags, etc. Anyhow, when I downgrade to some other binutils version than 2.16.90.0.3 my kernels builds otherwise "as" errors out on some assembler inline code. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
nxsty Veteran
Joined: 23 Jun 2004 Posts: 1556 Location: .se
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
PrakashP Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2003 Posts: 1249 Location: C.C.A.A., Germania
|
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 11:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
@asimon
As nxsty pointed out, it is not that new binutils are broken in regard to the kernel, they just disallow a certain assembler code, which should not have been allowed anyway.
Last edited by PrakashP on Sun May 29, 2005 6:11 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
asimon l33t
Joined: 27 Jun 2002 Posts: 979 Location: Germany, Old Europe
|
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
@nxsty and PrakashP
Yes you're right, I used an unpatched kernel, the binutils are not to blame. Looks like I didn't do my homework. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
chovy Guru
Joined: 03 Dec 2004 Posts: 453
|
Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I got the following error with:
$ emerge --ask --oneshot --verbose sys-devel/binutils
Quote: | * 40_all_118_arm_pass_all.patch ...
* Failed Patch: 40_all_118_arm_pass_all.patch !
* ( /var/tmp/portage/binutils-2.16-r1/work/patch/40_all_118_arm_pass_all.patch
)
*
* Include in your bugreport the contents of:
*
* /var/tmp/portage/binutils-2.16-r1/temp/40_all_118_arm_pass_all.patch-8999.out
!!! ERROR: sys-devel/binutils-2.16-r1 failed.
|
$less /var/tmp/portage/binutils-2.16-r1/temp/40_all_118_arm_pass_all.patch-8999.out
Quote: | ***** 40_all_118_arm_pass_all.patch *****
=========================================
PATCH COMMAND: patch -p0 -g0 --no-backup-if-mismatch < /var/tmp/portage/binutil
s-2.16-r1/work/patch/40_all_118_arm_pass_all.patch
=========================================
can't find file to patch at input line 10
Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option?
The text leading up to this was:
|
_________________ Woof, Woof! Add "[solved]" to the title! Woof, Woof! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|