On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Phil Blundell <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 12:02 -0700, Khem Raj wrote: >> I would have a feature called 'nobx' because most of the machines >> we support actively in OE has BX. With current state this needs to >> be added to MACHINE features for almost all arm machines. We can instead >> have nobx and keep USE_BX enabled and only disable it if nobx appears >> in machine_features. Otherwise I have tested the patches myself >> and they seems to work well. > > I'm not sure that putting bx (or nobx) in MACHINE_FEATURES really > conveys any information that you can't already get from TARGET_ARCH plus > THUMB_INTERWORK. It's also worth noting that the latter is a DISTRO > variable so, if you did add a competing bx flag to MACHINE_FEATURES, it > would be difficult to ensure that the two were consistent.
hmm TARGET_ARCH wouldnt be the one but BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH does have sub-arch info. Although I would agree with you that we can build this information from BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH but its not as bad to have it as a machine feature either. > > p. > > > _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
