On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 14:39 GMT, Richard Purdie wrote:
> This is not correct, e.g. HOST_ARCH does not always equal "x86" for 32
> bit x86 builds.
>
> $ MACHINE=qemux86 bitbake -e | grep ^OVERRIDES= -C 2
> # pre-expansion value:
> #
> "${TARGET_OS}:${TRANSLATED_TARGET_ARCH}:pn-${PN}:layer-${FILE_LAYERNAME}:${MACHINEOVERRIDES}:${DISTROOVERRIDES}:${CLASSOVERRIDE}${LIBCOVERRIDE}:forcevariable"
> OVERRIDES="linux:i686:pn-defaultpkgname:layer-config:x86:qemuall:qemux86:poky:poky-altcfg:class-target:libc-glibc:forcevariable"
>
> i.e. the x86 comes from MACHINEOVERRIDES.
There is obviously a problem when building binaries for an SDK and using
OVERRIDES for the check. To me, HOST_ARCH looks most correct, but if it
misses some cases, it should not be used as a one-to-one replacement for
OVERRIDES. Is there some proper way in BitBake to catch all 32-bit
architectures? If not, would adding i686, and potentially other missing
names, to the list of 32-bit time architectures, i.e
thirtytwo_bit_time_archs, be feasible?
--
Emil Kronborg
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#199830):
https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/199830
Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/106261505/21656
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
