On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 09:36:49PM -0400, Stefan Teleman wrote: >> I thought binutils was generally pretty good about backwards >> compatibility -- that you could always have the latest version on your >> system and have it work with the old compilers. Is that not actually >> the case, or is known not to be the case in the future? > > We don't know what will happen in the future. I am much less concerned > about the binary utilities like objdump or objcopy, but I am concerned > about future compatibility of the GNU assembler, which is currently > required to build any bits on i386.
So a) why put all this stuff under gcc4, making it look like you're worried about compatibility across gcc versions b) why not single out gas, and/or c) why not just make sure that before pulling in a new version of binutils, the new gas is capable of being the assembler for the portions of the OS build that require it? Danek
