Re: [PATCH] gcc: Add ability for tune files to pass in configure options to gcc

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

On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 08:11 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> On Aug 1, 2011, at 11:57 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 09:44 -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> >> On 08/01/2011 09:07 AM, Phil Blundell wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 09:37 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> >>>> Not sure I understand the statement about disambiguate the resulting compilers, on PPC where I intend to utilize this we'd have the toolchains already named something like:
> >>> 
> >>> The thing about disambiguating was that, if you're going to modify the
> >>> configure opts for gcc-cross based (indirectly) on ${MACHINE} you need
> >>> to consider what happens if you have a single build directory that's
> >>> being used for multiple MACHINEs.
> >> 
> >> What, I think, Kumar is driving at is why are you saying MACHINE when
> >> it's a per core tune he's doing.  eg, every e5500 would do --with-cpu=e5500
> > 
> > The question is whether we'd like to get to the point of having more
> > toolchains or less toolchains. I'd personally like to get to the point
> > of less toolchains (e.g. one per arch) rather than more of them. We
> > already pass all the appropriate flags around in the ADT/sdk code and in
> > our own cross builds, we could easily add those to the default target
> > environment too. This would actually make it clearer what is going on to
> > the end user too rather than hiding the details into the gcc
> > compilation.
> > 
> > So all things considered, I don't think this is the best way to go...
> > 
> 
> How is this done or exported to the user of an ADT/sdk toolchain?

There is a script included in the toolchain tarball which contains the
appropriate information. I don't have one handy to check but I suspect
Jessica will have. Jessica?

Cheers,

Richard