On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 09:18:45AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 7/13/21 9:52 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 04:51:40PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> >> No, 2.36 is not required. Perfectly fine to build with 2.35.2.
> >
> > That's correct.
> > But if you build with 2.36, w
On 7/13/21 9:52 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 04:51:40PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> No, 2.36 is not required. Perfectly fine to build with 2.35.2.
>
> That's correct.
> But if you build with 2.36, what does the runtime dependency say?
why don't you look yourself? the binar
On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 04:51:40PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> No, 2.36 is not required. Perfectly fine to build with 2.35.2.
That's correct.
But if you build with 2.36, what does the runtime dependency say?
Forcing binutils (>= 2.36) for both would be the easiest way
to avoid this situation.
No, 2.36 is not required. Perfectly fine to build with 2.35.2.
Source: gcc-11
Severity: serious
Helmut Grohne reported on IRC:
when gcc-11 is built with experimental binutils, the binary packages
do not work with unstable binutils by passing unrecognized options
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-11/changes.html confirms that gcc 11
might optionally use binutils 2.36
5 matches
Mail list logo
