On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Chris Larson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Christopher Larson <[email protected]> wrote: >> From: Christopher Larson <[email protected]> >> >> There's a problem in arch-powerpc.inc today, wherein it directly sets >> TUNE_PKGARCH, rather than setting TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-<tuning>. As a result, >> more specific tuning files (e.g. ppce500mc) then see their >> TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-<tuning> variable definitions no longer obeyed. As >> a consequence, the TUNE_PKGARCH ends up as 'powerpc' or 'powerpc-nf' rather >> than 'ppce500mc', which in turn causes a 'TUNE_PKGARCH not in PACKAGE_ARCHS' >> failure in the build. >> >> To fix, the .inc now sets TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-powerpc and >> TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-powerpc-nf rather than TUNE_PKGARCH. >> >> Signed-off-by: Christopher Larson <[email protected]> >> --- >> meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc | 5 +++-- >> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc >> b/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc >> index c9b2829..f811a3e 100644 >> --- a/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc >> +++ b/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc >> @@ -21,13 +21,14 @@ ABIEXTENSION = "${@['','spe'][d.getVar('TARGET_FPU', >> True) in ['ppc-efd', 'ppc-e >> PPCPKGSFX_FPU = "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "fpu-hard" , "", >> "-nf", d)}" >> >> PPCPKGARCH = "${TUNE_ARCH}${PPCPKGSFX_FPU}" >> -TUNE_PKGARCH ?= "${PPCPKGARCH}" >> >> # Basic tune definitions >> -AVAILTUNES += "powerpc powerpc-nf" >> +AVAILTUNES += "powerpc powerpc-nf" >> TUNE_FEATURES_tune-powerpc-nf ?= "m32 fpu-soft" >> +TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-powerpc-nf = "${PPCPKGARCH}" >> BASE_LIB_tune-powerpc-nf = "lib" >> PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS_tune-powerpc-nf = "powerpc-nf" >> TUNE_FEATURES_tune-powerpc ?= "m32 fpu-hard" >> +TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-powerpc = "${PPCPKGARCH}" >> BASE_LIB_tune-powerpc = "lib" >> PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS_tune-powerpc = "powerpc > > Hmm, actually, there's no reason these can't just set > TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-powerpc = "powerpc", etc rather than using the > PPCPKGARCH indirection. Anyone more familiar with the tuning code have > an opinion here?
I thought this was already fixed in my patch. Seems like it was not applied? -M commit 216b54e23a995aea79499b88a99f606bb65579af Author: Matthew McClintock <[email protected]> Date: Mon Feb 27 10:58:45 2012 -0600 arch-powerpc.inc: use default value of TUNE_PKGARCH We can use the default value for TUNE_PKGARCH, and now we just append "-nf" if TARGET_FPU is fpu-soft Signed-off-by: Matthew McClintock <[email protected]> diff --git a/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc b/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerp index c9b2829..9f588e8 100644 --- a/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc +++ b/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc @@ -18,10 +18,8 @@ TARGET_FPU .= "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "fpu-soft", "soft", "", d)} ABIEXTENSION = "${@['','spe'][d.getVar('TARGET_FPU', True) in ['ppc-efd', 'ppc-efs']]}" -PPCPKGSFX_FPU = "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "fpu-hard" , "", "-nf", d)}" - -PPCPKGARCH = "${TUNE_ARCH}${PPCPKGSFX_FPU}" -TUNE_PKGARCH ?= "${PPCPKGARCH}" +PPCPKGSFX_FPU = "${@['', '-nf'][d.getVar('TARGET_FPU',d,1) in ['fpu-soft']]}" +TUNE_PKGARCH_append = "${PPCPKGSFX_FPU}" # Basic tune definitions AVAILTUNES += "powerpc powerpc-nf" _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
