On Wednesday, May 30, 2012, Samuel Stirtzel wrote: > 2012/5/30 Khem Raj <[email protected] <javascript:;>>: > > > > > > On Wednesday, May 30, 2012, Samuel Stirtzel wrote: > >> > >> 2012/5/29 Khem Raj <[email protected] <javascript:;>>: > >> >> > >> >> At some extend yes, the configuration checks the host, the default > >> >> string passed is "arm" but the configure.in checks for: > >> >> > >> >> case "${host_cpu}" in > >> >> ... > >> >> armv7*) > >> >> AC_MSG_RESULT([ok (${host_cpu})]) > >> >> ARCH_MAX="arm" > >> >> > >> > > >> > in OE we know that compiler is configured to generate code for armv7 > >> > therefore you can safely change armv7* above in configure.in to be > arm* > >> > > >> > >> On this change I don't have a strong opinion (looks rather > cosmetically). > >> But sure I can send a follow up patch like you suggested. > > > > > > It is not cosmetic if you see it also enables it for non armv7 archs > > Maybe it is a misunderstanding? > Do you also want me to change: > > COMPATIBLE_HOST = '(i.86|x86_64|powerpc|powerpc64).*-linux' > COMPATIBLE_HOST_armv7a = 'arm.*-linux' > > to: COMPATIBLE_HOST = '(i.86|x86_64|powerpc|powerpc64||arm).*-linux' > > Else it would be only a cosmetic change, because the recipe is > preventing non armv7 arch. > Or am I mistaken? > > Recipe and package itself are two different things I was commenting on package itself how it's baked in OE is a different thing
> > -- > Regards > Samuel > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > [email protected] <javascript:;> > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core >
_______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
