On 02/27/2017 12:23 PM, Wold, Saul wrote:
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!
Yeah we need to have a talk about this since were dropping 4.4, and last
week I went throught some of the code of 4.9 which seems incompatible
for LTO, I haven't sent the other series because we still haven't agreed
on how to (more like where or when) to set WKS_FILE correctly, and the
CONSOLE issue as well.
Alejandro
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
