On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Martin Jansa <martin.ja...@gmail.com> wrote: > See: > > http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2015-November/112919.html > > I think it fixes the same issue.
Close, but not quite, I think. It doesn't look like it addresses the ordering mismatch that occurs due to the -vfp include being processed before the -neon include, resulting vfpv4 preceding neon in ARMPKGSFX_FPU when both are enabled. Thanks, -Matt > > On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Matt Madison <matt@madison.systems> wrote: >> >> I was trying some multilib ARM builds and ran into an issue. For >> armv7ahf-neon-vfpv4, PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS is coded as >> "armv7ahf-vfp-neon-vfpv4", >> but the ARMPKGSFX_FPU suffix was getting constructed as "-vfp-vfpv4-neon", >> resulting >> in 32-bit packages not getting found due to the name mismatch. >> >> The following patch fixes this by changing ARMPKGSFX_FPU. I'm not sure if >> it >> would be more correct to change the PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS settings, but the >> 'neon-vfpv4' more closely aligns to the tune names, so I took this route. >> >> Matt Madison (1): >> feature-arm-neon.inc, feature-arm-vfp.inc: fix vfpv4 suffix ordering >> >> meta/conf/machine/include/arm/feature-arm-neon.inc | 2 +- >> meta/conf/machine/include/arm/feature-arm-vfp.inc | 2 +- >> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> -- >> 2.5.0 >> >> -- >> _______________________________________________ >> Openembedded-core mailing list >> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org >> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core > > -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
