new binutils needed for arm in 3.12-rc1

[Måns Rullgård]

Rob Landley <rob at landley.net> writes:

> On 09/24/2013 09:07:57 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>> I'd strongly suggest you make your binutils compatible with newer
>> instruction syntax instead of making the kernel more complex.
>
> Meaning I play whack-a-mole as this becomes permission to depend on  
> endless new gnuisms just because they're there and nobody else is  
> regression testing against them, not because they actually add anything.

Since when is assembling the instructions correctly, as specified in the
arch ref, and not in some other random way a gnuism?

-- 
Måns Rullgård
mans at mansr.com