Greg Schafer wrote: > Ok. If latest HJL binutils work, we can therefore conclude there was some > x86_64 bugfix made after binitils-2.17. > > Mission - identify the fix, backport patch to 2.17, voila - problem > solved! No need for ridiculously flippant declarations of build methods > not working and being insufficient? Yes? >
The above is based on the assumption that the breakage was unintentional, and that the necessary change is indeed a small bugfix, not a big "feature patch". If this assumption is correct, I would tend to agree. I will look through changelogs now to see if there is something relevant. -- Alexander E. Patrakov -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
