[Bug libgcc/93053] libgcc build failure with old binutils on aarch64

2019-12-24 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93053 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Roman Zhuykov from comment #4) > PS. Cfarm gcc117 and 118 are not available at the moment, and 113-116 have > same hardware and old binutils 2.24. Just compile your own new binutils first.

[Bug libgcc/93053] libgcc build failure with old binutils on aarch64

2019-12-24 Thread zhroma at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93053 --- Comment #4 from Roman Zhuykov --- Maybe this should be catched earlier in configure scripts? Are there any simple workaround without patching the gcc source? I'm not familiar with different armvN -march option values. Probably it can help

[Bug libgcc/93053] libgcc build failure with old binutils on aarch64

2019-12-23 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93053 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- I think https://gcc.gnu.org/install/specific.html#aarch64-x-x should be updated rather than anything else.

[Bug libgcc/93053] libgcc build failure with old binutils on aarch64

2019-12-23 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93053 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- Yes for aarch64, a 6 old binutils is too old. A 5 year old one is not though.

[Bug libgcc/93053] libgcc build failure with old binutils on aarch64

2019-12-23 Thread zhroma at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93053 --- Comment #1 from Roman Zhuykov --- Now I can confirm it started with r275967.