On Fri, 24 May 2024 at 09:47, Emil Kronborg via lists.openembedded.org <[email protected]> wrote: > 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?
I vaguely remember that at some point I ran 'bitbake -e recipe' against qemux86 machine to study that question, and looked through all related variables, and couldn't find anything better. But you're welcome to try that as well. Alex
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#199832): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/199832 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]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
