[meta-intel] [PATCH 1/8] common/binutils-2.24.51.0.3: New recipe

[Wold, Saul]

On Mon, 2017-02-27 at 10:11 -0800, Cal Sullivan wrote:
> This one really scares me. Old version, removed CVE fixes, and might
> cause compatibility issues with other layers...
> 
> Saul?
> 
I thought that Alejandro was going to have another series that removed
the binutils?

Alejandro?

There was a presentation that talked about the LTO work at ELC, but
it's still getting pushed.

Sau!

> Thanks,
> Cal
> 
> On 02/13/2017 01:52 PM, Alejandro Hernandez wrote:
> > This is severely hacked version of the fido binutils recipe, which
> > is
> > the latest binutils 2.24 recipe that we have to start with.
> > 
> > Instead of using the standard gnu binutils, however, for kernel
> > LTO,
> > (which is the only reason we need this), we need to use the 'Linux
> > binutils', which is a different tarball/branch.
> > 
> > The problem is that there are various fixes needed for this version
> > of
> > binutils to work with gcc 6.2, and many of the patches in 2.24,
> > such
> > as the CVE patches, don't apply at build-time and so have been
> > commented out.
> > 
> > We should really be using the normal standard 2.7 binutils (using
> > of
> > course the linux binutils branch) but that currently produces
> > internal
> > errors during the kernel build.
> > 
> > For now, this works, and allows us to produce a working LTO-enabled
> > kernel.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi at linux.intel.com>
>