On Tue, 2017-09-19 at 11:27 -0700, Saul Wold wrote: > This is needed as an x32 more generic x32 override later in the > OVERRIDES, currently linux-gnux32 is the first override, but we > need a stronger (later in the list) x32 override to deal with some > needed x32 dependency overrides. > > Signed-off-by: Saul Wold <[email protected]> > --- > meta/conf/machine/include/x86/arch-x86.inc | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/meta/conf/machine/include/x86/arch-x86.inc > b/meta/conf/machine/include/x86/arch-x86.inc > index e51d595f74..31d30b3304 100644 > --- a/meta/conf/machine/include/x86/arch-x86.inc > +++ b/meta/conf/machine/include/x86/arch-x86.inc > @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@ TUNE_LDARGS += "${@bb.utils.contains('TUNE_FEATURES', > 'mx32', '-m elf32_x86_64', > TUNE_ASARGS += "${@bb.utils.contains('TUNE_FEATURES', 'mx32', '-x32', '', > d)}" > # user mode qemu doesn't support x32 > MACHINE_FEATURES_BACKFILL_CONSIDERED_append = " > ${@bb.utils.contains('TUNE_FEATURES', 'mx32', 'qemu-usermode', '', d)}" > +MACHINEOVERRIDES =. "${@bb.utils.contains('TUNE_FEATURES', 'mx32', > 'x86_x32:', '' ,d)}" > > # ELF64 ABI > TUNEVALID[m64] = "IA32e (x86_64) ELF64 standard ABI"
I was ok with this until I realised the patch does not do what it says in the commit message, it adds "x86_x32", not "x86-x32". Since "_" is the override modifier, I worry about how this reacts with the rest of the system and I suspect its a bad idea. Is there a reason you didn't use "x86-x32" (following the example of x86-64)? Cheers, Richard -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
