Op 11 sep. 2012, om 17:51 heeft Mark Hatle <mark.ha...@windriver.com> het volgende geschreven:
> On 9/11/12 8:48 AM, Martin Jansa wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 03:01:55PM +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> when building spitz and qemuarm (both produces packages in armv5te feed) >>> resulting packages are tuned with -mtune=xscale (when built for spitz) >>> or -mtune=arm926ej-s (when built for qemuarm). > > I argued this when we original did the work for the tunings, and I lost.... > >>> From >>> https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1916#c5 >>> Firstly, if you go changing the tune parameters in a given machine, you are >>> expected to use a different PACKAGE_ARCH. If you do that, you will get a >>> different package feed for the different binaries, different WORKDIR and so >>> on. This was always the way the package architectures was intended to work >>> and nothing has changed there. Yes, you as the user changing various >>> variables can create inconsistent package feeds. There are 101 ways you can >>> do that, the simple answer is just don't. We're therefore unlikely to add >>> MACHINE to DEPLOY_DIR or remove PACKAGE_ARCH, please just use it as its >>> intended. > > That is certainly my expectation. I'm not sure that the arm926ej-s can > produce binaries that are -not- arm5te binaries -- as that seems to be the > standard for what an armv5te is. The xscale on the other hand is capable of > having different tuning parameters and had a few additional instructions. >From a gcc point of view both are the same ISA, but using xscale will take in >account the absurdly long pipeline on that SoC. _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
