From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 93-97-173-237.zone5.bethere.co.uk ([93.97.173.237] helo=tim.rpsys.net) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QoFJj-0001ta-SK for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 15:47:32 +0200 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p72DhB2e015733; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 14:43:11 +0100 Received: from tim.rpsys.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (tim.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 14687-09; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 14:43:07 +0100 (BST) Received: from [192.168.3.10] ([192.168.3.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p72Dh2w9015727 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 2 Aug 2011 14:43:02 +0100 From: Richard Purdie To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer In-Reply-To: <9C87AA3D-2AE6-4C57-B903-0D939E577BB8@kernel.crashing.org> References: <1312208500-13381-1-git-send-email-galak@kernel.crashing.org> <1312209045.30326.515.camel@phil-desktop> <4727DFCB-0AA2-43D1-A0CA-58717D815FE8@kernel.crashing.org> <1312214835.30326.528.camel@phil-desktop> <4E36D800.1050906@mentor.com> <1312217833.2344.511.camel@rex> <9C87AA3D-2AE6-4C57-B903-0D939E577BB8@kernel.crashing.org> Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 14:42:45 +0100 Message-ID: <1312292565.2344.595.camel@rex> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.2 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rpsys.net Subject: Re: [PATCH] gcc: Add ability for tune files to pass in configure options to gcc 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: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 13:47:32 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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