29 Jul
2016
29 Jul
'16
8:49 a.m.
Hi Andrew, all,
On Thu, 2016-07-28 at 15:40 -0700, Vineet Gupta wrote:
On 07/28/2016 03:04 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
wrote:
But 2/2 works for both and makes actual binutils version moot. FWIW, ARC tools
don't as of last release didn't use the upstream/stable binutils, but we are
pretty close to that now though.
Personally I'd prefer to not add more conditional defines in uClibc but
make it a little-bit simpler.
I.e. either Vlad's patch or #1 from this series IMHO looks better.
It's been quite some time since we updated our tools with PCL support
and I'm not really sure if there's anybody interested in using ages old
tools with today's uClibc. We don't test such combinations and there could
be issues already in such combos.
BTW I noticed that Vlad's patch removes/reverts that thing as well:
http://cgit.uclibc-ng.org/cgi/cgit/uclibc-ng.git/commit/ldso/ldso/arc/dl-sy…
c5187
While Andrew just replaces ".&" construction with "@pcl".
I'm wondering which is the correct approach here?
-Alexey
Indeed your 2/2 seems to be the most "past-proof" code change. So I
>
> would think it
> is indeed better and is something I should have done in the first
> place.
>
> @Alexey, @Vlad what say you ?
uClibc traditionally supports the current
stable release of binutils, which would make it patch #1 I think.