On 2013年11月13日 07:58, Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-11-11 at 12:30 +0800, Lei Liu wrote:
>> +def get_optimization(d):
>> + selected_optimization = d.getVar("SELECTED_OPTIMIZATION", True)
>> + if base_contains("SELECTED_OPTIMIZATION", "-O0", "x", "", d) == "x":
>> + bb.note("libgcc can't be built with -O0, -O2 will be used instead.")
>> + return selected_optimization.replace("-O0", "-O2")
>> + return selected_optimization
>> +
>> +SELECTED_OPTIMIZATION := "${@get_optimization(d)}"
> Do we really need a Python function for this? It seems like a rather
> heavyweight mechanism to detect what is basically just a distro
> misconfiguration.
The python function is copied from eglibc recipe which does similar
job to force build the package with optimization enabled. I think
it's not just a distro misconfiguration. Sometimes it would be
convenient for user to select a global -O0 optimization level (to
create a more debug-friendly rootfs) for most packages, while
automatically switching to -O2 for those which can't be built without
optimizations.
>
> How about just patching the appropriate bit of libgcc to include:
>
> #if __OPTIMIZE__ == 0
> #error libgcc can't be built with -O0, please fix your distro to use at least
> -O1
> #endif
I think it would be more helpful if we can switch to -O1 or -O2 in
such case, instead of throwing out an error.
Lei
>
> or some such? Even this seems slightly dubious, since it will prevent
> you from building an unoptimised libgcc even if you have no intention of
> running valgrind with it, but at least this doesn't add extra overhead
> within bitbake.
>
> p.
>
>
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
