On Tue, 2017-04-11 at 09:39 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 9:34 AM, Patrick Ohly <patrick.o...@intel.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2017-04-10 at 14:49 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> >> Hello!
> >>
> >> I'm currently extending the yocto-compat-layer.py so that it can detect
> >> invalid signature changes when changing MACHINE. go-cross-x86_64 shows
> >> up as broken when comparing signatures for MACHINE=intel-corei7-64 and
> >> MACHINE=qemux86-64.
> >>
> >> Both machines share the same go-cross-x86_64, but that DEPENDS on
> >> libgcc:
> >>
> >> meta/recipes-devtools/go/go.inc:# libgcc is required for the target
> >> specific libraries to build properly
> >> meta/recipes-devtools/go/go.inc:DEPENDS += "go-bootstrap-native libgcc"
> >>
> >> And libgcc itself depends on the tune flags for the target architecture
> >> and thus is different for these two machines:
> >>
> >> $ bitbake-diffsigs -t go-cross-x86_64 do_prepare_recipe_sysroot -s
> >> 563f419e3854c2351e2cbbf33a9025f6 64e378fd9853a6cd6a4e7f684f52d2fc
> >> Hash for dependent task gcc/libgcc_6.3.bb.do_populate_sysroot changed from
> >> afb6b55c0e2b7d2e816b3d2d214a7326 to 208fac5ae428b07a4aa491b130879e4a
> >> Hash for dependent task gcc/libgcc_6.3.bb.do_multilib_install changed
> >> from 596e1612d7b84b7a9c1b409ee78cca89 to d41e2e835d0abe7646e53e3d63ce00cd
> >> Hash for dependent task gcc/libgcc_6.3.bb.do_install changed from
> >> 9ca4126c69fcceb410253a0603c3d76b to cb0c49687a91ea17f1027c6394baacab
> >> Hash for dependent task gcc/libgcc_6.3.bb.do_compile changed from
> >> ab80902424c73af49257cc3f6fe049aa to 436f978a703476968bd5ae1c1915ee5a
> >> Hash for dependent task gcc/libgcc_6.3.bb.do_configure changed
> >> from eb0c36d87f32ce1ceb7d1e42609578fb to f62c98806faf3a28c2144919b89d3460
> >> Hash for dependent task
> >> gcc/libgcc_6.3.bb.do_prepare_recipe_sysroot changed from
> >> b037b950e346bef71a4f8fd2c6a2195c to d4564b5730941279392932e3c670a5a5
> >> Hash for dependent task gcc/libgcc_6.3.bb.do_fetch changed
> >> from e64cd9e029ed63ba3a09e5fe085b7057 to ea4d3f9d10544219ceb8591d5a5a4041
> >> basehash changed from 8744593af2eddb60244788f2b9476e2d to
> >> dabeb22478ef501e35311af75119a2cf
> >> Variable TUNE_CCARGS value changed:
> >> " -m64 [--march=corei7 -mtune=corei7-] {+-march=core2
> >> -mtune=core2 -msse3+} -mfpmath=sse [--msse4.2-]"
> >>
> >> Does this fix look correct? It turns go-cross into a package that is
> >> specific to the tune flags for the target.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> The alternative would be to drop the libgcc dependency, but I have no
> >> idea whether that would work at all.
> >
> > Besides Bruce who pointed out the implications on recipes depending on
> > go-cross-${TARGET_ARCH}, Richard also had concerns about making go-cross
> > tune-specific, so I ended up testing the libgcc removal approach. It
> > happened to build okay, so the patch that I ended up proposing (see
> > "go-cross: avoid libgcc dependency") just removes libgcc from DEPENDS
> > for go-cross.
> >
> > I need to revise the method how its done (i.e. not with DEPENDS_remove),
> > but besides that, can anyone explain whether such a change might hit
> > some problems somewhere? Khem?
> >
>
> I think TUNE_PKGARCH is the granularity it needs for setting GOARM
> anyway.
So you are saying the patch that I had proposed initially in this mail
thread (go-cross-${TARGET_ARCH} -> go-cross-${TUNE_PKGARCH}) is the
right solution?
Just want to be absolutely sure, there's not much time to resolve this
for 2.3.
--
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly
The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.
--
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
