> Am 13.10.2015 um 18:49 schrieb Khem Raj <[email protected]>: > >> >> On Oct 13, 2015, at 4:45 AM, Otavio Salvador >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hello Jens and Khem, >> >> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Jens Rehsack <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Am 12.10.2015 um 18:32 schrieb Khem Raj <[email protected]>: >>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Jens Rehsack <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> Am 08.10.2015 um 18:40 schrieb Khem Raj <[email protected]>: >>>>> [...] >>>>> During hacking on the fix in meta/conf/machine/ I recognized that the >>>>> expected thump suffix in meta/conf/machine/include/tune-arm926ejs.inc >>>>> isn't there and modified the line as >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/meta/conf/machine/include/tune-arm926ejs.inc >>>>> b/meta/conf/machine/include/tune-arm926ejs.inc >>>>> index 335e4e0..a310c9d 100644 >>>>> --- a/meta/conf/machine/include/tune-arm926ejs.inc >>>>> +++ b/meta/conf/machine/include/tune-arm926ejs.inc >>>>> @@ -8,4 +8,4 @@ TUNE_CCARGS .= "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", >>>>> "arm926ejs", " -mtune=arm9 >>>>> AVAILTUNES += "arm926ejs" >>>>> ARMPKGARCH_tune-arm926ejs = "arm926ejs" >>>>> TUNE_FEATURES_tune-arm926ejs = "${TUNE_FEATURES_tune-armv5te} arm926ejs" >>>>> -PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS_tune-arm926ejs = >>>>> "${PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS_tune-armv5te} arm926ejste" >>>>> +PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS_tune-arm926ejs = >>>>> "${PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS_tune-armv5te} arm926ejste arm926ejse" >>>>> >>>> >>>> this is ok ? >>> >>> From >>> >>> TUNE_FEATURES="${TUNE_FEATURES_tune-${DEFAULTTUNE}}" >>> >>> is ok probably the wrong question ;) >>> >>> Setting DEFAULTTUNE to arm926ejs results in expanding PACKAGE_ARCH from >>> TUNE_PKGARCH which is combined via >>> "${ARMPKGARCH}${ARMPKGSFX_THUMB}${ARMPKGSFX_DSP}${ARMPKGSFX_EABI}${ARMPKGSFX_ENDIAN}${ARMPKGSFX_FPU}" >>> in >>> meta/conf/machine/include/arm/arch-arm.inc:12 >>> >>> Since ARMPKGSFX_THUMB is set to "t" (or "t2" on ARMv6+) only when thumb >>> code should be generated and >>> ARMPKGSFX_DSP is set to "e" when DSP is featured, both have to be >>> recognized. >>> >>> The entire construct doesn't feel "ok'ish" - but it works and is more or >>> less reliable ... >> >> I understand Khem is excitant to include more non-upstreamed patches >> into GCC but I would prefer to have it included and Java working fine >> than a local patch applied forever. :-( > > All I am asking is to open a bug with gcc. So to get some opinion on impact > of patch, workaround of this nature can > be degarading code generation, we do not have any report on that. So that my > concern was
I will check how difficult it is and report if it's a low hangin' fruit ;) Cheers -- Jens Rehsack - [email protected] -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
