> On Dec 15, 2015, at 12:16 PM, Paul Eggleton <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 12:07:48 Andre McCurdy wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Paul Eggleton >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 17:28:59 Alexander Kanavin wrote: >>>> On 12/15/2015 05:25 PM, Martin Jansa wrote: >>>>>> +COMPATIBLE_HOST = '(i.86|x86_64|mips|powerpc|powerpc64).*-linux' >>>>>> +COMPATIBLE_HOST_armv7a = 'arm.*-linux' >>>>> >>>>> Can you add armv7ve as well? >>>> >>>> Armv7ve support is not yet in master, so you'll have to add it later I'm >>>> afraid. >>> >>> I think by policy we don't have any restrictions on architecture-specific >>> flags in OE-Core (at least, assuming they're reasonable). >> >> If we're going to duplicate all _armv7a over-rides for _armv7ve then >> I'd vote to do so in a single patch series which fixes up the whole of >> oe-core rather than adding the over-rides one at a time amongst >> version updates etc. > > Makes sense, but before doing that would it make sense to have a grouping > override for all of them that can be used instead (where appropriate)? >
stepping back a step. What so different about armv7ve that it needs to be a separate arch its just virtual extensions on top of armv7a, so any override pertaining to armv7a should be valid for it well. Can you work towards making it so ? > Cheers, > Paul > > -- > > Paul Eggleton > Intel Open Source Technology Centre > -- > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
-- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
