On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 12:17 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana.radhakrish...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 01/06/11 19:41, Christian Robottom Reis wrote: >> Hello there, >> >> This week I initiated a confused conversation during the techleads >> call about having a way to describe what the hardware pack was built >> from. We had a couple of false starts but I think we agreeing that there >> needs to be some form of manifest that describes what the hardware pack >> contains. >> > > Sorry I'm getting into this conversation a bit late but is there also > a need to figure out what toolchain was used to build this hwpack and > the way in which the toolchain was configured (v7-a, neon, vfp , > vfpv3-d16) and what version of the toolchain was used. If this > information is already captured or there is an easy way of getting back > to this. This is if you think there is a use-case of regenerating the hwpack > to investigate any issues that might come up
Is there a gcc fingerprints in binaries that we could use to extract the toolchain info? Otherwise, we probably would have to fiddle this out of the build logs and so on and it feels like quite a challenge to get this right. e.g. some packages work around toolchain bugs by compiling objects, so's and binaries with non-default compiler flags etc. so even if we try to track this manually, everything short of having that info directly in the binaries would yield to inaccurate info is my guess. -- - Alexander _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
