This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: binutils 2.20 gone missing?
On 1/17/2013 12:43 PM, Sebastian Unger wrote:
that was 2.20.1a. The two are now identical in the archive, so 2.20.1a
replaced 2.20.1 completely. But there's no trace of 2.20.
I checked an RTEMS tools testing machine and I have the
binutils-2.20.tar.bz2 file on it.
$ md5sum binutils-2.20.tar.bz2
Do I need to arrange to get it to someone to get it back on the
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Joel Sherrill
Wasn't 2.20.1 just to correct a packaging issue? Or am I remembering another .1?
Sebastian Unger <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Hi Nick & Clifton,
I'm trying to reproduce a toolchain from source to the point of being
able to produce binary identical output from an tag of our sources.
The toolchain used to use 2.20, so that's what I was going for. I
wanted to know why 2.20 had been removed. I.e. was it an accident or
was there some serious flaw with it and it was recalled. In that
latter case I need to think about whether we really DO want to produce
binary identical output or rather get the benefit of not having the
flaw. (whatever that might be).
An alternative explanation could be that you guys never released a
2.20 in which case I have to start researching more where we got it
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 3:52 AM, nick clifton <email@example.com> wrote:
I'm trying to rebuild an older tool-chain of mine which was using
binutils 2.20. I was surprised that that source tarball is gone from
I can see a binutils-2.20.1.tar.bz2 file there. Is that not what you want ?
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D. Director of Research & Development
joel.sherrill@OARcorp.com On-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS Huntsville AL 35805
Support Available (256) 722-9985