On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Khem Raj <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mar 23, 2016 8:19 PM, "Andre McCurdy" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Signed-off-by: Andre McCurdy <[email protected]> >> --- >> meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-configure-common.inc | 1 + >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >> >> diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-configure-common.inc >> b/meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-configure-common.inc >> index f4f76bd..a7b8d63 100644 >> --- a/meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-configure-common.inc >> +++ b/meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-configure-common.inc >> @@ -65,6 +65,7 @@ EXTRA_OECONF_append_mips64eln32 = " --with-abi=64 >> --with-arch-64=mips64 --with-t >> EXTRA_OECONF_append_armv6 = " --with-arch=armv6" >> EXTRA_OECONF_append_armv7a = " --with-arch=armv7-a" >> EXTRA_OECONF_append_armv7ve = " --with-arch=armv7-a" >> +EXTRA_OECONF_append_armv8a = " --with-arch=armv7-a" > > Armv8 is different architecture and even gcc backends for armv8 arent shared > with armv7. This change doesn't look right to me. What are you fixing with > this change
In the context of oe-core machine specific over-rides, "armv8a" signifies that we're building 32bit code for an ARMv8-A class CPU. See: http://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core/commit/?h=master-next&id=823af99d825375485d64fcb82c00fb85004813b8 (Maybe it would have been better to use aarch32 as the over-ride in this case?). >> >> EXTRA_OECONF_GCC_FLOAT ??= "" >> CPPFLAGS = "" >> -- >> 1.9.1 >> >> -- >> _______________________________________________ >> Openembedded-core mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
