On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Phil Blundell <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 14:12 -0700, Khem Raj wrote: >> 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. > > I do think it is fairly undesirable to have the same thing configured in > two places. If a DISTRO sets THUMB_INTERWORK to off on a v4t platform > then I think they would have a reasonable expectation that this would > cause bx to not be used. If uclibc is looking at some other place to > decide then it will not behave in the expected fashion.
should we make THUMB_INTERWORK a distro feature ? currently its an independent variable. This should be set in consent with chosen machine so if a machine does not support interworking then distro should remove it from a possible set of distro features. Then uclibc can rely on this distro feature to turn bx support on|off. > > p. > > > > _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
