On Sun, 12 Mar 2017, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> References to dependencies on really, really old versions of
> binutils (talking 10+ years here) which I think we can remove.
> Let me follow-up with some of you with concrete suggestions
> around that.
I think we should set a global minimum binutils
On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 01:59:28 PDT (-0700), ger...@pfeifer.com wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Mar 2017, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>> I looked at our stuff (RISC-V) and there's almost nothing in there.
>> Is there something I should add? I looked at the aarch64 stuff in the
>> "host/target specific issues start her
Hi Palmer,
On Sun, 12 Mar 2017, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> I looked at our stuff (RISC-V) and there's almost nothing in there.
> Is there something I should add? I looked at the aarch64 stuff in the
> "host/target specific issues start here" section and there's some notes
> about binutils-2.24.
On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 04:27:26 PDT (-0700), ger...@pfeifer.com wrote:
> I noticed that the target-specific sections in doc/install.texi
> need a little lover and care. It would be great could you have
> a look and streamline/update before the GCC 7 release.
I looked at our stuff (RISC-V) and there'
I noticed that the target-specific sections in doc/install.texi
need a little lover and care. It would be great could you have
a look and streamline/update before the GCC 7 release.
Thanks!
Also, I'm offering help around one particular aspect I noticed:
References to dependencies on really, re
