Richard Purdie wrote: > On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 15:36 -0800, Zhang, Jessica wrote: >> Hi Richard, >> >> As I mentioned in IRC, we've noticed that bitbake behaves differently >> on 64bit and 32bit machines from SDKMACHINE setup perspective. It >> never enforces SDKMACHINE to be set in local.conf for 64bit users but >> for 32bit user, if you leave SDKMACHINE unset, the bitbake sanity >> test will fail and prompts user to set the SDKMACHINE to i586. >> >> It seems internally we really use SDK_ARCH which derived from >> BUILD_ARCH that reflects the poky build machines arch. And for >> bitbake sanity check if it sees SDK_ARCH is i686, it will prompts >> user to set SDKMACHINE to i586 since there's a known issue for this >> case can't use the default build machine arch of i686. >> >> Questions are: >> 1. what is the known issue for using i686? > > (e)glibc will fail to build with some issues to do with architecture > optimisations. I don't remember the details but the builds do fail and > the warning is valid. The easy way to test is to disable the warning > and try it! > > Once, there were also conflicts between the native bits and the cross > bits both being i686 but I think the problem was solved a long time > ago. > > At some point it would be nice to fix this but as far as I know the > problem remains and the sanity warning is still valid. >
Interestingly, by simply comment off the sanity check for SDK_ARCH == i686, I successfully built meta-toolchain for i686-i586 and poky-image-sdk for x86 and didn't run into (e)glibc build errors. I check my built toolchain and sysroot, and everything looks right, as host as i686 and target as i586. I was able to use the cross toolchain to compile a simple c program. Are these enough test, if so, I'll submitted a patch ... Thanks Jessica
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
