Re: Native/Cross/SDK rethink (Was: Re: RFC: "Virtual" native and sdk recipes)

[Koen Kooi <k.kooi@student.utwente.nl>]

On 05-01-09 15:31, Esben Haabendal wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 5:37 AM, Tom Rini<trini@kernel.crashing.org>  wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 01:11:53AM +0000, Richard Purdie wrote:

>>> This does reverse the logic that the current sdk class we use however
>>> since MACHINE is now the machine we want to run the compiler on, not the
>>> machine we want to compile for. It should be simple enough to add some
>>> MACHINEs and version setups which correspond to a Linux 32 bit system, a
>>> Linux 64 bit system and a windows system though. Assuming the choice of
>>> TARGET for gcc-canadian is controlled by a variable like SDKTARGET, to
>>> run the builds I'd want, I'd run:
>>>
>>> MACHINE=i686-generic   SDKTARGET=armv5te-generic bitbake gcc-canadian
>>> MACHINE=x86-64-generic SDKTARGET=armv5te-generic bitbake gcc-canadian
>>> MACHINE=winxp-generic  SDKTARGET=armv5te-generic bitbake gcc-canadian
>> Or 'meta-toolchain-sbox' for an existing SDK type target.
>
> I'm sorry, but this seems like a dangerous way of starting confusion of terms.
> MACHINE in how I see OE is really the _TARGET_, ie. the small device this all
> is targeted at.

MACHINE is where the generated stuff will _run_ on, so MACHINE=x86 
SDKTARGET=armv5te would be more in line with what OE expects, but I 
agree it can be confusing if you are thinking in autotools terms.

regards,

Koen