What binutils version is compatible with gcc 3.3 ?
Daniel Jacobowitz
drow@mvista.com
Tue May 20 17:16:00 GMT 2003
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 08:16:57AM -0700, Mark D. Baushke wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> writes:
>
> > On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 07:03:35AM -0700, Mark D. Baushke wrote:
> > > Hi Folks,
> > >
> > You really can not do combined builds using released versions. As
> > you've found, shared files drift too much.
>
> Well, I suspect it *could* be done, provided that there is a release of
> each of the needed versions actually released.
>
> (The odd thing to me is that the binutils-2_14-branch seems to mostly
> work, but the top-of-tree trunk does not.)
>
> So, is there any clue as to when binutils 2.14 might be released?
> How stable is it at present?
When it's ready. I'm hoping for a new prerelease tonight.
> > Although, in general it should work if you just take the newest version
> > of each file. libiberty is always backwards compatible.
>
> Hmmm... a noble goal, but the differences between gcc-3.3 and
> binutils-2.13.2.1 shows that make-relative-prefix.c ad physmem.c were
> added to gcc-3.3, but that cplus-dem.c had main() ripped out of it
> which would mean that trying to build binutils-2.13.2.1 would fail
> when that main() was found missing in the building of c++filt.
>
> Sigh.
cplus-dem was a (controversial) exception.
No, seriously. Either use a CVS snapshot from the same day, or else
build the pieces separately. It's a pain but not as much of a pain as
this.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
More information about the Binutils
mailing list