On Mon, 13 Mar 2017, Nick Clifton wrote:
>>> Okay to yank this?
>> Fine by me.
> Me too.
Okay, so I went ahead and committed the patch below.
> None. Are you intending to replace the requirement with a more recent
> version of the binutils, or just remove the requirement entirely ?
This is most
Hi Guys,
>>> References to dependencies on really, really old versions of
>>> binutils (talking 10+ years here) which I think we can remove.
>>ARM-family processors. Subtargets that use the ELF object format
>>require GNU binutils 2.13 or newer. Such subtargets include:
>> Okay to yank
On 12/03/17 11:31, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Sun, 12 Mar 2017, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
Also, I'm offering help around one particular aspect I noticed:
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
