On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 10:11 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 23-07-10 10:02, Phil Blundell wrote: > > On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 09:25 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote: > >> There is a BIG problem with these patches, they break multimachine builds. > >> > >> The previous situation had: > >> > >> cross/armv7a-angstrom-foo/usr/bin/ > >> cross/armv5te-angstrom-foo/usr/bin/ > >> etc > >> > >> The new situation has: > >> > >> x86_64-linux/usr/bin > >> > >> So all the toolchains get dropped into the *same* directory, which > >> breaks horribly. > > > > Which are the actual binaries that collide? I would have thought that > > everything which gets installed into the cross bindir ought to be > > prefixed with TARGET_SYS (i.e. usr/bin/armv7a-angstrom-linux-gcc, etc). > > It's all 'arm-angstrom-foo', I was just about to make the suggestion to > change it to 'armv7a-angstrom-foo' :)
I've just been talking to Koen about this. When building for armv7a, TARGET_ARCH which goes into TARGET_PREFIX and TARGET_SYS is "arm". I suspect if we change TARGET_ARCH to be armv7a, nasty things will happen but I could be wrong. If that doesn't help which I suspect it won't, my gut instinct is to add a architecture specific directory under bin for the cross bits. This could be as simple as changing bindir in cross.bbclass. > I don't know if that solves the binutils-cross problem[1], though. > > Koen > > [1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.handhelds.openembedded/34685 Is that libiberty.a file actually useful or could we just stop binutils-cross installing it? Cheers, Richard _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
