From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2017 21:34:00 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 2/4] binutils: add support for binutils 2.29 In-Reply-To: <20170729181554.GF28707@waldemar-brodkorb.de> References: <20170729130906.2140-1-thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> <20170729130906.2140-3-thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> <20170729181554.GF28707@waldemar-brodkorb.de> Message-ID: <20170729213400.566ef659@windsurf.lan> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 20:15:54 +0200, Waldemar Brodkorb wrote: > > All patches from binutils 2.28 are kept, except patch > > 0906-microblaze-pr21180.patch, because it has been merged upstream as > > of commit bd757ca7bf5886a4025ca02093fca1b8c5ce11a2. Other patches are > > slightly adapted to differences that appeared in binutils 2.29. > > > > The patches are now all Git formatted, so instead of having weird > > sequence numbers, they have normal sequence numbers starting from 0001 > > and incrementing. > > > > Since binutils 2.29 is now available as a .tar.xz tarball, we use this > > format instead of .bz2 used for previous versions. > > I am testing some more qemu defconfigs with binutils 2.29. > sh4/sparc worked fine. But xtensa fails to compile busybox: > > /home/wbx/buildroot/output/host/lib/gcc/xtensa-buildroot-linux-uclibc/6.4.0/../../../../xtensa-buildroot-linux-uclibc/bin/ld: > BFD (GNU Binutils) 2.29 assertion fail elf32-xtensa.c:3965 > > Adding Max to Cc. Thanks! Since we're not switching to 2.29 as the default, I think it's fine if some architectures have a few issues with 2.29. The whole point of adding new versions before making them the default is precisely to iron out such issues. Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com