binutils: add version 2.23.1
PATCH 1/1 binutils: add version 2.23.1
--- package/binutils/Config.in.host | 5 +++ package/binutils/binutils-2.23.1/120-sh-conf.patch | 29 +++++++++++++++ .../300-001_ld_makefile_patch.patch | 24 +++++++++++++ .../300-012_check_ldrunpath_length.patch | 21 +++++++++++ package/binutils/binutils-2.23.1/500-sysroot.patch | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++ 5 files changed, 116 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) create mode 100644 package/binutils/binutils-2.23.1/120-sh-conf.patch create mode 100644 package/binutils/binutils-2.23.1/300-001_ld_makefile_patch.patch create mode 100644 package/binutils/binutils-2.23.1/300-012_check_ldrunpath_length.patch create mode 100644 package/binutils/binutils-2.23.1/500-sysroot.patch
package/binutils/Config.in.host +5 -0
@@ -36,6 +36,10 @@ choice depends on !(BR2_avr32 || BR2_UCLIBC_VERSION_0_9_31) bool "binutils 2.23" + config BR2_BINUTILS_VERSION_2_23_1 + depends on !(BR2_avr32 || BR2_UCLIBC_VERSION_0_9_31) + bool "binutils 2.23.1" + endchoice config BR2_BINUTILS_VERSION
@@ -47,6 +51,7 @@ config BR2_BINUTILS_VERSION default "2.21.1" if BR2_BINUTILS_VERSION_2_21_1 default "2.22" if BR2_BINUTILS_VERSION_2_22 default "2.23" if BR2_BINUTILS_VERSION_2_23 + default "2.23.1" if BR2_BINUTILS_VERSION_2_23_1 config BR2_BINUTILS_EXTRA_CONFIG_OPTIONS string "Additional binutils options"
package/binutils/binutils-2.23.1/120-sh-conf.patch new file +29 -0
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ +r10231 | lethal | 2005-05-02 09:58:00 -0400 (Mon, 02 May 2005) | 13 lines + +Likewise, binutils has no idea about any of these new targets either, so we +fix that up too.. now we're able to actually build a real toolchain for +sh2a_nofpu- and other more ineptly named toolchains (and yes, there are more +inept targets than that one, really. Go look, I promise). + +--- a/configure ++++ b/configure +@@ -1495,7 +1495,7 @@ + mips*-*-*) + noconfigdirs="$noconfigdirs gprof" + ;; +- sh-*-* | sh64-*-*) ++ sh*-*-* | sh64-*-*) + case "${target}" in + sh*-*-elf) + ;; +--- a/configure.ac ++++ b/configure.ac +@@ -712,7 +712,7 @@ + mips*-*-*) + noconfigdirs="$noconfigdirs gprof" + ;; +- sh-*-* | sh64-*-*) ++ sh*-*-* | sh64-*-*) + case "${target}" in + sh*-*-elf) + ;;
package/binutils/binutils-2.23.1/300-001_ld_makefile_patch.patch new file +24 -0
@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@ +diff -u binutils-2.17.50.0.17.oorig/ld/Makefile.am binutils-2.17.50.0.17/ld/Makefile.am +--- binutils-2.17.50.0.17.oorig/ld/Makefile.am 2007-06-18 19:29:29.000000000 +0200 ++++ binutils-2.17.50.0.17/ld/Makefile.am 2007-06-25 10:00:36.000000000 +0200 +@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ + # We put the scripts in the directory $(scriptdir)/ldscripts. + # We can't put the scripts in $(datadir) because the SEARCH_DIR + # directives need to be different for native and cross linkers. +-scriptdir = $(tooldir)/lib ++scriptdir = $(libdir) + + EMUL = @EMUL@ + EMULATION_OFILES = @EMULATION_OFILES@ +diff -u binutils-2.17.50.0.17.oorig/ld/Makefile.in binutils-2.17.50.0.17/ld/Makefile.in +--- binutils-2.17.50.0.17.oorig/ld/Makefile.in 2007-06-18 19:29:29.000000000 +0200 ++++ binutils-2.17.50.0.17/ld/Makefile.in 2007-06-25 10:00:36.000000000 +0200 +@@ -287,7 +287,7 @@ + # We put the scripts in the directory $(scriptdir)/ldscripts. + # We can't put the scripts in $(datadir) because the SEARCH_DIR + # directives need to be different for native and cross linkers. +-scriptdir = $(tooldir)/lib ++scriptdir = $(libdir) + BASEDIR = $(srcdir)/.. + BFDDIR = $(BASEDIR)/bfd + INCDIR = $(BASEDIR)/include
package/binutils/binutils-2.23.1/300-012_check_ldrunpath_length.patch new file +21 -0
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +diff -Nura binutils-2.21.orig/ld/emultempl/elf32.em binutils-2.21/ld/emultempl/elf32.em +--- binutils-2.21.orig/ld/emultempl/elf32.em 2010-10-29 09:10:36.000000000 -0300 ++++ binutils-2.21/ld/emultempl/elf32.em 2010-12-10 09:26:56.746102724 -0300 +@@ -1270,6 +1270,8 @@ + && command_line.rpath == NULL) + { + lib_path = (const char *) getenv ("LD_RUN_PATH"); ++ if ((lib_path) && (strlen (lib_path) == 0)) ++ lib_path = NULL; + if (gld${EMULATION_NAME}_search_needed (lib_path, &n, + force)) + break; +@@ -1497,6 +1499,8 @@ + rpath = command_line.rpath; + if (rpath == NULL) + rpath = (const char *) getenv ("LD_RUN_PATH"); ++ if ((rpath) && (strlen (rpath) == 0)) ++ rpath = NULL; + + for (abfd = link_info.input_bfds; abfd; abfd = abfd->link_next) + if (bfd_get_flavour (abfd) == bfd_target_elf_flavour)
package/binutils/binutils-2.23.1/500-sysroot.patch new file +37 -0
@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +Signed-off-by: Sven Rebhan <[email protected]> + +Always try to prepend the sysroot prefix to absolute filenames first. + +http://bugs.gentoo.org/275666 +http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10340 + +--- a/ld/ldfile.c ++++ b/ld/ldfile.c +@@ -308,18 +308,25 @@ + directory first. */ + if (! entry->flags.maybe_archive) + { +- if (entry->flags.sysrooted && IS_ABSOLUTE_PATH (entry->filename)) ++ /* For absolute pathnames, try to always open the file in the ++ sysroot first. If this fails, try to open the file at the ++ given location. */ ++ entry->flags.sysrooted = is_sysrooted_pathname (entry->filename); ++ if (!entry->flags.sysrooted && IS_ABSOLUTE_PATH (entry->filename) ++ && ld_sysroot) + { + char *name = concat (ld_sysroot, entry->filename, + (const char *) NULL); + if (ldfile_try_open_bfd (name, entry)) + { + entry->filename = name; ++ entry->flags.sysrooted = TRUE; + return TRUE; + } + free (name); + } +- else if (ldfile_try_open_bfd (entry->filename, entry)) ++ ++ if (ldfile_try_open_bfd (entry->filename, entry)) + return TRUE; + + if (IS_ABSOLUTE_PATH (entry->filename))
Signature · 1 line
1.7.8.6
PATCH 1/1 binutils: add version 2.23.1
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
"Gustavo" == Gustavo Zacarias <[email protected]> writes:
Gustavo> Signed-off-by: Gustavo Zacarias <[email protected]> Gustavo> ---
Gustavo> package/binutils/Config.in.host | 5 +++ Gustavo> package/binutils/binutils-2.23.1/120-sh-conf.patch | 29 +++++++++++++++ Gustavo> .../300-001_ld_makefile_patch.patch | 24 +++++++++++++ Gustavo> .../300-012_check_ldrunpath_length.patch | 21 +++++++++++ Gustavo> package/binutils/binutils-2.23.1/500-sysroot.patch | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++ Gustavo> 5 files changed, 116 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) Gustavo> create mode 100644 package/binutils/binutils-2.23.1/120-sh-conf.patch Gustavo> create mode 100644 package/binutils/binutils-2.23.1/300-001_ld_makefile_patch.patch Gustavo> create mode 100644 package/binutils/binutils-2.23.1/300-012_check_ldrunpath_length.patch Gustavo> create mode 100644 package/binutils/binutils-2.23.1/500-sysroot.patch
Gustavo> diff --git a/package/binutils/Config.in.host b/package/binutils/Config.in.host Gustavo> index 26c5f73..7a9eae8 100644
Gustavo> --- a/package/binutils/Config.in.host
Gustavo> +++ b/package/binutils/Config.in.host
Gustavo> @@ -36,6 +36,10 @@ choice
Gustavo> depends on !(BR2_avr32 || BR2_UCLIBC_VERSION_0_9_31)
Gustavo> bool "binutils 2.23"
Gustavo> + config BR2_BINUTILS_VERSION_2_23_1
Gustavo> + depends on !(BR2_avr32 || BR2_UCLIBC_VERSION_0_9_31)
Gustavo> + bool "binutils 2.23.1"
Gustavo> +
I know we have been doing it in the past because of various arch issues, but does it make sense to keep both 2.23 and 2.23.1?
Signature · 1 line
Bye, Peter Korsgaard
PATCH 1/1 binutils: add version 2.23.1
Quoted 2 lines · Peter Korsgaard
I know we have been doing it in the past because of various arch issues, but does it make sense to keep both 2.23 and 2.23.1?
I've tested 2.23.1 only for ppc targets so far, and 2.23 for many more architectures.
Common sense says 2.23.1 alone should be enough, but i haven't tested that scenario.
We also have other dot versions that could also be dropped like 2.20. Regards.
PATCH 1/1 binutils: add version 2.23.1
In reply to Peter KorsgaardQuoted 23 lines · Peter Korsgaard
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
"Gustavo" == Gustavo Zacarias <[email protected]> writes:
Gustavo> Signed-off-by: Gustavo Zacarias <[email protected]> Gustavo> ---
Gustavo> package/binutils/Config.in.host | 5 +++ Gustavo> package/binutils/binutils-2.23.1/120-sh-conf.patch | 29 +++++++++++++++ Gustavo> .../300-001_ld_makefile_patch.patch | 24 +++++++++++++ Gustavo> .../300-012_check_ldrunpath_length.patch | 21 +++++++++++ Gustavo> package/binutils/binutils-2.23.1/500-sysroot.patch | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++ Gustavo> 5 files changed, 116 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) Gustavo> create mode 100644 package/binutils/binutils-2.23.1/120-sh-conf.patch Gustavo> create mode 100644 package/binutils/binutils-2.23.1/300-001_ld_makefile_patch.patch Gustavo> create mode 100644 package/binutils/binutils-2.23.1/300-012_check_ldrunpath_length.patch Gustavo> create mode 100644 package/binutils/binutils-2.23.1/500-sysroot.patchGustavo> diff --git a/package/binutils/Config.in.host b/package/binutils/Config.in.host Gustavo> index 26c5f73..7a9eae8 100644
Gustavo> --- a/package/binutils/Config.in.host
Gustavo> +++ b/package/binutils/Config.in.host
Gustavo> @@ -36,6 +36,10 @@ choice
Gustavo> depends on !(BR2_avr32 ||BR2_UCLIBC_VERSION_0_9_31)
Gustavo> bool "binutils 2.23"
Quoted 7 lines
Gustavo> + config
BR2_BINUTILS_VERSION_2_23_1
Gustavo> + depends on !(BR2_avr32 ||BR2_UCLIBC_VERSION_0_9_31)
Gustavo> + bool "binutils 2.23.1"
Gustavo> +I know we have been doing it in the past because of various arch issues, but does it make sense to keep both 2.23 and 2.23.1?
I believe that 2.23 was never officially packaged so it is probably better to remove it.
PATCH 1/1 binutils: add version 2.23.1
Quoted 2 lines · Will Newton
I believe that 2.23 was never officially packaged so it is probably better to remove it.
It's in official GNU mirrors, i'd say it has been. Doesn't mean we should keep it though. Regards.
PATCH 1/1 binutils: add version 2.23.1
Quoted 7 lines · Gustavo Zacarias
Quoted 2 lines · Will Newton
I believe that 2.23 was never officially packaged so it is probably better to remove it.
It's in official GNU mirrors, i'd say it has been. Doesn't mean we should keep it though.
From the 2.23.1 release announcement:
"Thanks to everyone who contributed to the release. The branch remains open for bug fixes.
Note that because of packaging issues, binutils 2.23 was not released."
I'm not sure what the precise issues were but it seems safer to move to 2.23.1.
PATCH 1/1 binutils: add version 2.23.1
Quoted 8 lines · Will Newton
From the 2.23.1 release announcement:
"Thanks to everyone who contributed to the release. The branch remains open for bug fixes.
Note that because of packaging issues, binutils 2.23 was not released."
I'm not sure what the precise issues were but it seems safer to move to 2.23.1.
From what i've read in the mailing list there were some tagging issues and whatnot.
There was also the vanishing tarball issue, when i sent the initial 2.23 bump there was a tar.bz2 for 2.23 and then it was gone with only the tar.gz remaining.
I'm not for or against the move, since it's not a default i see no big issue removing it, but then we always gave some choice regarding toolchain components.
Regards.
PATCH 1/1 binutils: add version 2.23.1
In reply to Will NewtonQuoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
"Will" == Will Newton <[email protected]> writes:
Will> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Gustavo Zacarias
Quoted 9 lines · Will> <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 9 lines · Will Newton
Quoted 3 lines
I believe that 2.23 was never officially packaged so it is probably better to remove it.
It's in official GNU mirrors, i'd say it has been. Doesn't mean we should keep it though.
From the 2.23.1 release announcement:
Will> "Thanks to everyone who contributed to the release. The branch remains Will> open for bug fixes.
Will> Note that because of packaging issues, binutils 2.23 was not released."
Will> I'm not sure what the precise issues were but it seems safer to Will> move to 2.23.1.
I agree. Gustavo, could you respin the patch to replace 2.23 with 2.23.1 instead?
Signature · 1 line
Bye, Peter Korsgaard
PATCH 1/1 binutils: add version 2.23.1
Quoted 2 lines · Peter Korsgaard
I agree. Gustavo, could you respin the patch to replace 2.23 with 2.23.1 instead?
And what about 2.20?
Hint: you can't say mark it as deprecated and throw the kill switch to 2.23 ;-)
Regards.
PATCH 1/1 binutils: add version 2.23.1
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
"Gustavo" == Gustavo Zacarias <[email protected]> writes:
Quoted 2 lines · Peter Korsgaard
Quoted 2 lines
I agree. Gustavo, could you respin the patch to replace 2.23 with 2.23.1 instead?
Gustavo> And what about 2.20?
Gustavo> Hint: you can't say mark it as deprecated and throw the kill Gustavo> switch to 2.23 ;-)
Well, the difference is that we have already done releases with 2.20 and haven't marked it as deprecated yet, whereas 2.23 hasn't been in any release yet.
It probably makes sense to deprecate 2.20 now, yes.
Signature · 1 line
Bye, Peter Korsgaard