On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 11:47 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote: > ARM seems to be the one exception, where you have three levels.. ABI > (EABI/hf-EABI), processor family (armv4, armv5, armv7, cortext....), and then > CPU optimization. This seems to cause additional confusion, as the CPU > optimizations are not being captured in the current package ARCH, which makes > it > difficult to optimize on a feed.
I guess that by "processor family" you mean ISA. (I'm not aware of an ARM ISA variant named "cortext", though I haven't really been keeping up with the latest developments there so I could imagine that one might exist.) Anyway, the basic three-way scenario (ISA, ABI, optimisation) that you describe above isn't in any sense unique to ARM; the concept of per-cpu-model optimisation/tuning applies equally to other architectures (x86 for example) as well. It's probably less of an issue for MIPS but I suspect that's more a reflection of gcc's weaker optimisation capabilities on that architecture rather than a homogeous CPU population. I don't know PowerPC well enough to make any comment about that. There's no particular reason that the per-cpu tuning couldn't be captured in PACKAGE_ARCH if one wanted to do it. But the decision about how to structure a binary feed is clearly one for the DISTRO and the question of how to map that into PACKAGE_ARCH is, equally clearly, one that the distro ought to be solving. Since oe-core itself doesn't build any feeds, I don't think there's any reason for it to make heroic efforts to sort out the package architectures that would go into them. p. _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
