minimum required binutils for ppc32?
evil at g-house.de
Sun May 23 23:57:50 EST 2004
Christoph Hellwig schrieb:
| What's the minimum required binutils version for ppc32 these days?
| The debian kernel package ups it from 2.12.1 to 126.96.36.199.7, i.e. from
| the first 2.12 maintaince release to one of hjl's later releases and
| I wonder why it does that. Either it's bogus and should be be dropped
| or we should up it in mainline.
well, the version of binutils in debian/woody is still
and kernel-source packages usually only depend on "binutils" from the
same release (e.g. "stable"), no version number is given in "Depends:"
the unstable changelog reveals:
binutils (188.8.131.52.7-1) unstable; urgency=low
~ * New upstream version (synced with CVS 2002-04-23).
~ * Upstream: ELF EH frame bug fix
~ * Upstream: MIPS ELF visibility bug fix
~ * Upstream: Bug fixes for ELF/sparc
~ * Upstream: Bug fixes for ELF/cris
~ * Upstream: Fix linking a.out relocatable files
~ with ELF
~ * Upstream: Fix a PPC altivec assembler bug
~ * Numerous upstream changes since I have
~ deliberately not updated in awhile so that
~ I could stabilise the package for woody
~ * Fixed a glaring typo in the Debian additions
~ to the version string.
~ * Upstream incorporated --oformat
~ documentation patch; removed.
~ * Added a patch from upstream involving
~ relative relocs on Alpha
~ * Removed configure.info-[1-3] from -doc
~ (closes: Bug#146205)
so, there is some "PPC altivec assembler bug", but no bug#, don't what
this is about.
speaking of binutils, i'm currently unable to compile binutils-2.14.92
for ppc32 (hence the posting of "Error: Unrecognized opcode: `dssall'"
BOFH excuse #426:
internet is needed to catch the etherbunny
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
More information about the Linuxppc-dev