On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 09:44 -0700, Tom Rini wrote: > On 08/01/2011 09:07 AM, Phil Blundell wrote: > > On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 09:37 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: > >> Not sure I understand the statement about disambiguate the resulting > >> compilers, on PPC where I intend to utilize this we'd have the toolchains > >> already named something like: > > > > The thing about disambiguating was that, if you're going to modify the > > configure opts for gcc-cross based (indirectly) on ${MACHINE} you need > > to consider what happens if you have a single build directory that's > > being used for multiple MACHINEs. > > What, I think, Kumar is driving at is why are you saying MACHINE when > it's a per core tune he's doing. eg, every e5500 would do --with-cpu=e5500
I said MACHINE because, in general, it's the MACHINE which selects the tune. If it's the case that (for powerpc at least) all the tunes end up setting a distinct PACKAGE_ARCH then this probably is a non-issue there, but that isn't true in the general case. (For example, the arm926ejs tune file sets PACKAGE_ARCH=armv5te or something, so it wouldn't be sensible for it to be configuring gcc --with-cpu=arm926ej-s.) Likewise for gcc-cross, if you're going to let this apply there then you need to make sure that the TARGET_ARCH value in the triplet is at least as specific as the tuning you ask for, otherwise you will end up with multiple different compilers all called armv5te-oe-linux-gcc or whatever. p. _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core