[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 12:09:27 -0800 (PST)
From: Po-yi Wang <player@....bc.ca>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: will this idea work?
On Thu, 25 Jan 2018, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> * Po-yi Wang <player@....bc.ca> [2018-01-24 21:16:15 -0800]:
>> the current version of musl (1.1.18), will no longer work with older
>> binutils and gcc, specifically, the arm target. both i486 and ppc seem ok.
>> i have checked older versions of musl, i guess some of them must have worked
>> with gcc-3 binutils-1.15 before. suppose i try to port musl to work with
(binutils-2.15)(typo)
>> older tools, specially gcc-3.4.5 and binutils-1.15. also assuming, only need
(binutils-2.15)(typo)
>> to support older cpu and nothing new. i am guessing porting all the assembly
>> files (*.s) would be sufficient?
>
> yes, porting the asm works, but note that the old
> vfp intrinsics that work in binutils don't work in
> llvm (complain to llvm folks) so it's not possible
> to write asm such that every tool is happy, you
> will need to do some ifdef clang hackery and i'm
> not sure if the '.object_arch' directive works with
> that old binutils.
>
i scanned through the musl mailing list archive, it seemed that
the minimum supported binutils version has been discussed before,
around October 15, 2015. what is the current recommended gcc+binutils
version that can support 486,armv5,ppc750?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
