[This didn't seem to get through last time.]
On Sat, 16 Oct 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Define "latest tools". Past history suggests that this will lead to
> unstable kernels. Also, with each kernel you should supply the
> toolchain version information so that when a problem does occur,
> people know which versions of what to blame.
My casual definition of `latest tools' would the latest versions
of binutils and gcc that had been used by the standard ARM hackers
with any success.
I don't see why it should lead to any more unstable kernels than
everyone is using at the moment. Most people who I catch building
their own kernels these days seem to be using binutils 2.9.5 and
gcc 2.95 -- I think those could fairly be called the `latest tools',
and I haven't noticed any widespread complaints of instability?
I think the one about the kernels failing if you build them with a
gcc later than 2.3 or whatever it was actually was fixed three or
four years ago or something.
Maybe if you followed my toolchain guide you might get a set of
tools which built kernels okay. ;-)
However, if you like, I'll happily output toolchain version data
for each kernel built. Fair enough?
--
Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ( http://www.fluff.org/chris )
unsubscribe: body of `unsubscribe linux-arm' to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
