It's not caused by this change (not the previous one I believe), but today I've noticed that aarch64 tunes don't set TUNE_PKGARCH correctly.
e.g. with raspberrypi3-64 which since this commit: https://github.com/agherzan/meta-raspberrypi/commit/9cc89cb7341d633b6fc3a92b937b5560d26257a1 uses conf/machine/include/tune-cortexa53.inc I was expecting it to use cortexa53 specific TUNE_PKGARCH (and stop messing with other MACHINEs which are using aarch64 package feed). There is indeed: DEFAULTTUNE="cortexa53" and mcpu=cortex-a53+crc in CC: export CC="aarch64-webos-linux-gcc -mcpu=cortex-a53+crc --sysroot=/OE/build/luneos-warrior/webos-ports/tmp-glibc/work/aarch64-webos-linux/zlib/1.2.11-r0/recipe-sysroot" But ARMPKGARCH="cortexa53" # $TUNE_PKGARCH_32 # set /OE/build/luneos-warrior/webos-ports/openembedded-core/meta/conf/machine/include/arm/arch-arm64.inc:29 # "${ARMPKGARCH}${ARMPKGSFX_THUMB}${ARMPKGSFX_DSP}${ARMPKGSFX_EABI}${ARMPKGSFX_ENDIAN}${ARMPKGSFX_FPU}" TUNE_PKGARCH_32="cortexa53" # # $TUNE_PKGARCH_64 # set /OE/build/luneos-warrior/webos-ports/openembedded-core/meta/conf/machine/include/arm/arch-arm64.inc:23 # "aarch64${ARMPKGSFX_ENDIAN_64}" TUNE_PKGARCH_64="aarch64" # "${@bb.utils.contains('TUNE_FEATURES', 'aarch64', '${TUNE_PKGARCH_64}', '${TUNE_PKGARCH_32}' ,d)}" TUNE_PKGARCH="aarch64" so the packages built with -mcpu=cortex-a53+crc (and rpi overrides) end in the same TUNE_PKGARCH as other MACHINEs which include e.g. conf/machine/include/arm/arch-arm64.inc and DEFAULTTUNE="aarch64" which surprisingly uses aarch64 in both TUNE_PKGARCH_32/64: # "${@bb.utils.contains('TUNE_FEATURES', 'aarch64', '${TUNE_PKGARCH_64}', '${TUNE_PKGARCH_32}' ,d)}" TUNE_PKGARCH="aarch64" # # $TUNE_PKGARCH_32 # set /OE/build/luneos-warrior/webos-ports/openembedded-core/meta/conf/machine/include/arm/arch-arm64.inc:29 # "${ARMPKGARCH}${ARMPKGSFX_THUMB}${ARMPKGSFX_DSP}${ARMPKGSFX_EABI}${ARMPKGSFX_ENDIAN}${ARMPKGSFX_FPU}" TUNE_PKGARCH_32="aarch64" # # $TUNE_PKGARCH_64 # set /OE/build/luneos-warrior/webos-ports/openembedded-core/meta/conf/machine/include/arm/arch-arm64.inc:23 # "aarch64${ARMPKGSFX_ENDIAN_64}" TUNE_PKGARCH_64="aarch64" Looks like aarch64 are even bigger mess than arm tunes already :/. On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 10:48 PM Andre McCurdy <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 1:24 PM Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 12:29:29PM -0700, Andre McCurdy wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 11:23 PM Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 09:26:46PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: > > > > >... > > > > > "armv4t" is defined in the arm tune files to mean "add > -march=armv4t" > > > > > which is the convention used throughout all the tune files. > > > > >... > > > > > > > > Unfortunately this is not true. > > > > > > > > OE has both armv7a and armv7at tunes. > > > > > > > > There is no armv7a without Thumb support, > > > > so no -march=armv7-at exists in gcc. > > > > > > > > Both armv7a and armv7at tunes pass the same march to gcc, > > > > but [1] is not true: > > > > Default to using the Thumb-2 instruction set for armv7a and above. > > > > > > > > The hardware supports Thumb-2 in any case, the actual difference > between > > > > the armv7a and armv7at OE tunes is whether OE tells the compiler to > > > > generate ARM or Thumb-2 code. > > > > > > > > OE has both armv6 and armv6t tunes. > > > > > > > > There is no armv6 without Thumb support > > > > so no -march=armv6t exists in gcc. > > > > > > > > Some v6 support only Thumb-1 and some v6 support also Thumb-2, > > > > so what gcc does have is an -march=armv6t2. > > > > But OE lacks tunes for that. > > > > > > > > For matching the gcc options it would be correct to remove all > > > > armv6t and armv7at tunes that have no coresponding gcc options, > > > > and add armv6t2 tunes. > > > > > > Aligning the tuning options exposed via the machine config files to > > > those supported by gcc seems like a worthy goal... but would be a big > > > upheaval at this point. > > > > > > Note that the problem isn't specific to ARM. There are similar issues > > > for x86, but there we seem happy to provide a very minimal abstraction > > > with no attempt to track gcc. e.g. "corei7" hasn't been a documented > > > -march option since gcc 4.8 and we (somewhat arbitrarily) map it to > > > -march=nehalem to hide that fact from end users. > > > > > > So the high level question seems to be: should DEFAULTTUNE even > > > attempt to provide a full featured mapping to the options provided by > > > gcc? Are we happy to expose a limited subset without a 1:1 mapping for > > > the options we do expose (current ARM approach) or is it better for > > > DEFAULTTUNE to hide away all the complexity of the options provided by > > > gcc (current x86 approach). > > > > The current 32bit ARM[1] approach seems to be an attempt > > of a 1:1 mapping. > > > > For ARMv8 it is already obvious that DEFAULTTUNE is not long-term > > maintainable, and duplicating all the gcc rules regarding feature > > flags[2] also sounds like a pointless exercise. > > > > What are actually the benefits of DEFAULTTUNE with all the tune files, > > compared to just let the user provide a string that is passed to -march? > > Restricting the user to a certain set of DEFAULTTUNE options means > there will always be a valid mapping from DEFAULTTUNE to > PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS. > > If we let the user pass an arbitrary string to -march then we lose the > ability to determine that (for example) it's safe for a > "armv7athf-vfpv3" machine to pull from a "armv7athf-vfpv3d16" package > feed. > > Whether or not anyone in the real world actually maintains a generic > package feed and pulls from it from multiple machine specific builds > (verses setting up separate package feeds for each DEFAULTTUNE they > care about) would be an interesting question... > > > cu > > Adrian > > > > [1] ARM <= v7, not the differing 32bit ABI of ARMv8 > > [2] example: > > 'fp16fml' > > Enable FP16 fmla extension. This also enables FP16 extensions and > > floating-point instructions. This option is enabled by default for > > '-march=armv8.4-a'. Use of this option with architectures prior to > > Armv8.2-A is not supported. > > > > > > -- > > > > "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out > > of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. > > "Only a promise," Lao Er said. > > Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed > > > -- > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core >
-- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
