binutils-2.22 upgrade?

I tested binutils-2.22 upgrade.
Not looking for that, I find, the 3 patches required on glibc-2.11 to fix glibc compilation with binutils-2.22.
Entire compilation completed.

Looking at the log diff, binutils-2.22 look to fix a few configure tests previously failing, present in many packages
-checking for llseek... no
+checking for llseek... yes
-checking for tmpnam... no
-checking for tmpnam_r... no
+checking for tmpnam... yes
+checking for tmpnam_r... yes
-checking for sys_errlist... no
-checking for sys_nerr... no
+checking for sys_errlist... yes
+checking for sys_nerr... yes
-checking for mktemp... no
+checking for mktemp... yes
-tmpnam_r() NOT found.
+tmpnam_r() found.
-checking for getwd... no
+checking for getwd... yes
-checking for sigstack... no
+checking for sigstack... yes

unsure for this one in iftop
-checking POSIX threads compilation... CFLAGS= and LIBS=
+checking POSIX threads compilation... CFLAGS= and LIBS=-lpthread

and remove a warning present in krb5-1.10.3, in patch about usage of mktemp like this one
-kprop.o: In function `get_tickets':
-kprop.c:(.text+0xeba): warning: the use of `mktemp' is dangerous, better use `mkstemp'


I haven't yet run the test suite.
In result, there is 213 DIFF files in doc diff-list when comparing with 2.10 tree without binutils-2.22 upgrade.
That mean a lot of files not yet include in update are different. As gcc is changed (by tmpnam test result), that will invalidate ccache hits and first compilation will be slow.

So I tend to think this upgrade is a good thing, but I still need to run the test suite to check there is no hidden issues.

Gilles

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and 
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions 
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware 
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/