On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Richard Purdie <[email protected]> wrote: >> I think the 2 toolchains is UGLY and confusing to customers/users. >> While I understand it from the point of view on how to take steps to >> get multilib going it doesn't mean we shouldnt start thinking about >> how to address these issues. > > We've been working on multilb for a while and so far its taken some > significant work by several people to get things working as they are > now. We really need to spend some some and stabilise and consolidate > that work so far at this point. > > I'm more than happy to think about consolidating the toolchain pieces, > its on the future ideas list but I don't believe its appropriate right > now. I'd like the work done so far to work properly before we try > enhancing it further. > > I'd hope that the toolchains are actually pretty hidden from > customers/users to, I don't think its as ugly as you're making out and > actually has some benefits.
I think 32bit will be called powerpc-*-*-gcc and 64bit will be powerpc64-*-*-gcc which is IMO readable. GCC based toolchains have their own idea of multilib which isnt quite same as OE. So I think current solution is better. As long as both compilers are shipped in SDKs it should be fine. But I see the point where if you have been shipping single multilibbed toolchains then there will be a change the way compilers are invoked. _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
