Re: Multilib Development Update

[Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Tue, 2011-06-21 at 15:33 +0200, Eric Bénard wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 21/06/2011 15:30, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-06-21 at 15:02 +0200, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
> >> As I already asked before: what is the benefit having this in embedded
> >> systems?
> >>
> >> If I am doing an embedded system I know the target hardware, and there
> >> is no need to have e.g. both 32 and 64 bit libs.
> >
> > This has been mentioned before but there are embedded use cases where
> > the requirement is to have a low overhead OS using 32 bit libs and
> > binaries to save memory but the main application (like a database
> > server) runs in 64 bit mode with 64 bit libraries so it can take
> > advantage of system memory, extra instructions or so forth. This applies
> > to mips and powerpc as well as x86.
> >
> > The implementation is fairly self contained so if you don't want
> > multilib, you shouldn't even be aware its there...
> >
> will that feature allow to build a sdk running on both x86 and amd64 hosts 
> whatever is the build host ?

With OE-Core, you could already do this by setting SDKMACHINE and
building one, then setting SDKMACHINE to the other and building it
again.

Looking at the code, I am strongly tempted to replace nativesdk and
crosssdk with the multilib code though as I think it can reuse the same
functionality. That is a step beyond where we're currently at though :)

Cheers,

Richard