2010/6/23 Khem Raj <[email protected]>: > On (23/06/10 13:16), Frans Meulenbroeks wrote: >> 2010/6/23 Koen Kooi <[email protected]>: >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> > Hash: SHA1 >> > >> > On 23-06-10 12:07, Philip Balister wrote: >> >> On 06/23/2010 12:03 PM, Graeme Gregory wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 11:54:21 +0200 >> >>> Frans Meulenbroeks<[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> 2010/6/23 Graeme Gregory<[email protected]>: >> >>>>>>>> Also I don't feel empowered to make changes in distribution >> >>>>>>>> specific files. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Why not, chances are Angstrom maintainers would be quite happy for >> >>>>> you to patch angstrom*.conf if you ask us. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Graeme >> >>>> >> >>>> distribution != angstrom >> >>>> There are more distributions out there. >> >> >> >> Right now, toolchain selection is done in distro files not machine >> >> files. I agree this is not the clearest approach, however adding the >> >> toolchain selection to the machine files may have unexpected side effects. >> > >> > Think of multimachine builds. What happens when someone else adds >> > *another* nios2 based machine with different toolchain versions, how do >> > I know which toolchain avahi_1.0_nios2.ipk was compiled with >> >> If toolchain is interesting to know in ipk's it should be part of the name. >> And note that I am really in favour of an architecture specific >> solution, not a machine one. >> That is why I used an include file to contain the pinnings. >> >> And actually the situation with nios2 is much much worse. >> As it is a soft-core people can come up with all kind of variants. >> (e.g. with/without fp). > > not new. Other arches have similar variants already in OE
I know, but at least in those architectures if you have a board the situation is static. In fpga's capable of having a nios2 machine, it is still possible to load different configurations. As such it is different from everything we have (as far as I know we have no microblaze boards yet). > > >> Actually nios2 adds pragma's to gcc to select >> which instructions are there and which not. > > Well I would have preferred commandline options that way you could > have many variants and we could have overrides like we have arm sub-arches You would indeed get many variants and many options. Anyway, the code I started with had the pragma's.There were other higher priority things to dig into (like getting it to compile on 64 bit hw). Frans > > >> Not sure whether the latter is a good idea as it is one of the things >> that fail moving to a newer gcc. >> >> The good news is that most of the variants used have different >> peripherals, but seem to stick to just a few cpu cores. >> (nios2 is used as a generic name for the SoC as well as the core, >> doesn't help to separate things either). >> >> Frans >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Openembedded-devel mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel > _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
