Require binutils 2.20 or later to build glibc

[Carlos O'Donell]

On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Roland McGrath <roland@hack.frob.com> wrote:
> In its own right, I think 2.20 seems like a reasonable baseline.
> But it seems suspect that we're requiring a binutils years newer
> than the GCC we require.  Perhaps it would be OK to require 4.4.3
> by now, which meshes better with 2.20.  But I'm not at all sure.
>
> I vaguely recall people posting before that requiring too new
> a binutils was burdensome for some platform or other, but I don't
> recall the details.  I think we should at least get each arch maintainer
> to weigh in explicitly before deciding.
>
> Independently, I think it's a bit dubious that we're requiring IFUNC
> support unconditionally.  (I hadn't noticed we used it outside of
> multiarch.)  Perhaps my tendencies move too slowly, but it still feels a
> might newfangled.

For HPPA we want the absolute newest binutils possible since we have
some cache aliasing issues which are fixed by newer binutils.

Cheers,
Carlos.