On 3/2/20 1:34 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 10:29:37AM -0800, Khem Raj wrote:
On 3/2/20 9:11 AM, Junling Zheng wrote:
Currently, for arch-arm64, poky will append the MACHINEOVERRIDES with
"aarch64:", which has the higher priority than TRANSLATED_TARGET_ARCH.
So, for aarch64 big endian, the variable '<foo>_aarch64' will override
not only '<foo>', but also '<foo>_aarch64-be', thus we will get an
incorrect variable.
Signed-off-by: Junling Zheng <zhengjunl...@huawei.com>
---
meta/conf/machine/include/arm/arch-arm64.inc | 2 --
1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/meta/conf/machine/include/arm/arch-arm64.inc
b/meta/conf/machine/include/arm/arch-arm64.inc
index 53f4566815..32294bd218 100644
--- a/meta/conf/machine/include/arm/arch-arm64.inc
+++ b/meta/conf/machine/include/arm/arch-arm64.inc
@@ -4,8 +4,6 @@ require conf/machine/include/arm/arch-armv7ve.inc
TUNEVALID[aarch64] = "Enable instructions for aarch64"
-MACHINEOVERRIDES =. "${@bb.utils.contains('TUNE_FEATURES', 'aarch64', 'aarch64:',
'' ,d)}"
-
if its removed here, where is it being added for other machines, question
is, should we treat aarch64 as LE equivalent of aarch64_be
or should be treated as common aarch64 and a new define like aarch64_le
defined.
...
As far as I am aware all other distributions and config.guess are
treating aarch64/arm64 as little endian and 64bit, unless suffixed.
this is effective only in defining overrides and like we have for mips
there is a common override like mipsarch, that apply to all mips. and
mips in itself does mean MIPS BE, so my question was if there is a value
in having a common overrrided across all aarch64 variants we have
irrepective of endianness or wordlength, its fine if we want to treat
aarch64 as LE
--
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
