From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.pbcl.net ([88.198.119.4] helo=hetzner.pbcl.net) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QlOGz-00016o-71 for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 18:44:53 +0200 Received: from cambridge.roku.com ([81.142.160.137] helo=[172.30.1.145]) by hetzner.pbcl.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QlOCx-0000vm-7u for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 18:40:43 +0200 From: Phil Blundell To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 17:40:42 +0100 In-Reply-To: <4E2D9304.6090502@mentor.com> References: <1311609451.30326.244.camel@phil-desktop> <4E2D9304.6090502@mentor.com> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.0.2- Message-ID: <1311612043.30326.254.camel@phil-desktop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/8] siteinfo: Move the rp-pppoe entry to common-linux X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 16:44:53 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 09:00 -0700, Tom Rini wrote: > On 07/25/2011 08:57 AM, Phil Blundell wrote: > > On Fri, 2011-07-22 at 10:10 -0700, Tom Rini wrote: > >> --- a/meta/site/common-linux > >> +++ b/meta/site/common-linux > >> @@ -23,3 +23,6 @@ bash_cv_unusable_rtsigs=${bash_cv_unusable_rtsigs=no} > >> # mysql > >> ac_cv_sys_restartable_syscalls=${ac_cv_sys_restartable_syscalls=yes} > >> ac_cv_conv_longlong_to_float=${ac_cv_conv_longlong_to_float=yes} > >> + > >> +# rp-pppoe > >> +rpppoe_cv_pack_bitfields=${rpppoe_cv_pack_bitfields=rev} > > > > Is that really correct? Bitfield packing isn't an OS issue, it's > > primarily a question of compiler choice. For GCC I think it correlates > > with endianness; looking at what that test is doing, I'd expect you to > > get "reversed" on little-endian and "normal" on big-endian. > > It's possible we're getting this, and have been getting this wrong on > big-endian targets but I haven't heard from Freescale this is failing > for them. I'm OK with dropping this bit out for now until we can > confirm this test on a BE machine. That's probably best. In any case, as far as I can tell rp-pppoe is (despite what you might expect from the name) not actually in oe-core itself, so perhaps its definitions don't belong in oe-core's site files either. p.