Detlef Vollmann wrote:
On 07/02/10 00:01, Richard Purdie wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 00:14 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
I would like to propose to remove building multilib with gcc recipes.
It creates problems
and we do not package correct bits on some platforms. As we tend to
build toolchains keeping in mind the machine it is targetting I think
multilib is not that significant
Concerns ? comments?
I'm backing this. Currently multilib is broken and for a good
implementation we really needs a ground up proposal for how to handle it
well. I'm starting to look into the problem FWIW so I'd appreciate being
in the loop in any discussions.
I've run into multilib issues as well, but could always solve it on a
case by case base (e.g. on powerpc). But I agree it's currently a mess.
But what you need to keep in mind if you actually drop multilib support
is that you need to rename the prefix for the SDK toolchains.
It would be bad if PowerPC 32-bit and 64-bit toolchains were both named
powerpc-angstrom-linux-
Keep in mind that what's being suggested isn't dropping multilib support
but being clear that it's not something that works right today while we
re-evaluate doing it properly. As you note, yes, the SDK case needs
some thought today as the default paths conflict very easily (and can
just as easily be worked around, stick FEED_ARCH or similar in there).
--
Tom Rini
Mentor Graphics Corporation
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
