On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:49 AM, McClintock Matthew-B29882 <b29...@freescale.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Khem Raj <raj.k...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 8/25/2011 7:35 AM, Kumar Gala wrote: >>> >>> We have some packages like flac that are aware of vectorization that may >>> or may not exist on a given processor. I was wondering if adding something >>> like TARGET_VECTOR similar to TARGET_FPU made sense as a way for recipes to >>> decide on how to set various vectorization flags if needed. >>> >>> I was looking at this mostly from the PPC side in which we have: >>> >>> TARGET_VECTOR = "" /* processor has no vector hw */ >>> TARGET_VECTOR = "altivec" /* processor has AltiVec support */ >>> TARGET_VECTOR = "spe" /* processor has signal processing engine support */ >>> TARGET_VECTOR = "vsx" /* processor has Vector-Scalar Extension */ >>> >> >> is target vector a property of FPU itself or is it a separate processing >> unit in hardware.? > > We have several powerpc cores each containing a different vector > features. We need a way to differentiate in the recipes between > different cores and decide to enable SPE, Altivec, etc to build the > package properly. > > I've sort of gone the route of adding: > > OVERRIDES := ":core_type" > > And using that in recipes. But, I think we need a consensus on how we > want to handle this.
there is SOC_FAMILY thats used predominantly in TI chips that could be of interest here. but in this case I wanted to understand if it is a feature of FPU or is it a separate unit, still not clear to me. > > -M > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core > _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
