From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id 633ABE00BD5; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 13:46:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on yocto-www.yoctoproject.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * -2.3 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, * medium trust * [192.55.52.43 listed in list.dnswl.org] * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * 0.5 RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM RBL: SORBS: sender is a spam source * [192.55.52.43 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] Received: from mga05.intel.com (mga05.intel.com [192.55.52.43]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFE17E00BC1 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 13:46:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by fmsmga105.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 06 Jul 2017 13:46:33 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.40,319,1496127600"; d="scan'208";a="108105705" Received: from unknown (HELO speedy) ([10.54.74.100]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 06 Jul 2017 13:46:33 -0700 Message-ID: <1499373993.7546.35.camel@linux.intel.com> From: Todor Minchev To: Khem Raj Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2017 13:46:33 -0700 In-Reply-To: References: <1499283599-11297-1-git-send-email-swee.aun.khor@intel.com> <1499371700.7546.27.camel@linux.intel.com> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.9-1+b1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: swee.aun.khor@intel.com, "yocto@yoctoproject.org" , Saul Wold Subject: Re: [RMC][PATCH v2] RMC: Support x32 build X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2017 20:46:37 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 13:37 -0700, Khem Raj wrote: > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Todor Minchev > wrote: > > On Wed, 2017-07-05 at 12:39 -0700, swee.aun.khor@intel.com wrote: > >> From: sweeaun > >> > >> RMC efi is needed to compiled as 64 bits even DEFAULTTUNE is x32. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: sweeaun > >> --- > >> Makefile.efi | 3 +++ > >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/Makefile.efi b/Makefile.efi > >> index 4f69dfe..95e0f8c 100644 > >> --- a/Makefile.efi > >> +++ b/Makefile.efi > >> @@ -16,6 +16,9 @@ RMC_INSTALL_LIB_PATH := $(RMC_INSTALL_PREFIX)/lib/ > >> > >> RMC_CFLAGS := -DRMC_EFI -Wall -I$(TOPDIR)/inc -fpic -nostdinc -nostdlib -fno-builtin -std=gnu90 > >> > >> +#RMC efi is needed to be compiled as 64 bit even DEFAULTTUNE is x32 > >> +CC := $(patsubst -mx32, -m64, $(CC)) > >> + > > > > does this mean package is overriding CC passed from env ? > if yes then I think app should be fixed to respect CC if set in env > and only set it if CC env is not set +1 The app respects both CC and CFLAGS from the env. They have to be set to the correct values before the Makefile is called. > > > Since this is not an RMC-specific problem, I believe that we shouldn't > > patch the compiler flags in the RMC Makefile. This patch will provide > > the desired outcome only when RMC is built with meta-intel. A better > > alternative will be to split rmc.bb into rmc.bb (userspace app) and > > rmc-efi.bb (efi library) and modify the compiler flags for each recipe. > > I will send a patch that does this. > > > > Todor > > > >> all: librmcefi > >> > >> $(RMC_LIB_OBJ): %.efi.o: %.c > > > > > > -- > > _______________________________________________ > > yocto mailing list > > yocto@yoctoproject.org > > https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto