On Mon, 2017-02-27 at 10:11 -0800, Cal Sullivan wrote: > This one really scares me. Old version, removed CVE fixes, and might > cause compatibility issues with other layers... > > Saul? > I thought that Alejandro was going to have another series that removed the binutils?
Alejandro? There was a presentation that talked about the LTO work at ELC, but it's still getting pushed. Sau! > Thanks, > Cal > > On 02/13/2017 01:52 PM, Alejandro Hernandez wrote: > > This is severely hacked version of the fido binutils recipe, which > > is > > the latest binutils 2.24 recipe that we have to start with. > > > > Instead of using the standard gnu binutils, however, for kernel > > LTO, > > (which is the only reason we need this), we need to use the 'Linux > > binutils', which is a different tarball/branch. > > > > The problem is that there are various fixes needed for this version > > of > > binutils to work with gcc 6.2, and many of the patches in 2.24, > > such > > as the CVE patches, don't apply at build-time and so have been > > commented out. > > > > We should really be using the normal standard 2.7 binutils (using > > of > > course the linux binutils branch) but that currently produces > > internal > > errors during the kernel build. > > > > For now, this works, and allows us to produce a working LTO-enabled > > kernel. > > > > Signed-off-by: Tom Zanussi <tom.zanu...@linux.intel.com> > -- _______________________________________________ meta-intel mailing list meta-intel@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-intel