Re: populate_sdk: We need to ensure that the SDK sysroot reflects PACKAGE_ARCH

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

On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 14:07 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 07:59 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> > On Aug 9, 2011, at 11:00 PM, Lu, Lianhao wrote:
> > 
> > > Richard Purdie wrote on 2011-08-10:
> > >> If we don't do this, the SDK target sysroot is named generically even
> > >> when it contains package architecture specific optimisations.
> > >> 
> > >> Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> ---
> > >> diff --git a/meta/classes/populate_sdk.bbclass
> > >> b/meta/classes/populate_sdk.bbclass index 0f3591b..8c19e83 100644 ---
> > >> a/meta/classes/populate_sdk.bbclass +++
> > >> b/meta/classes/populate_sdk.bbclass @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ SDK_DIR =
> > >> "${WORKDIR}/sdk"
> > >> SDK_OUTPUT = "${SDK_DIR}/image"
> > >> SDK_DEPLOY = "${TMPDIR}/deploy/sdk"
> > >> -SDKTARGETSYSROOT = "${SDKPATH}/sysroots/${TARGET_SYS}"
> > >> +SDKTARGETSYSROOT = "${SDKPATH}/sysroots/${MULTIMACH_TARGET_SYS}"
> > > 
> > > In gcc-configure-sdk.inc, it is set "--with-sysroot=${SDKPATH}/sysroots/${TARGET_SYS}". 
> > > Is there any inconsistency?
> > 
> > Binutils might also need updating.
> 
> This is an interesting question. We certainly compile in a default path
> for the sysroot but we in general always override it from the
> environment anyway.
> 
> As long as the package architectures for the sdk components are correct
> we should be able to update the defaults. I've not yet checked that
> though.

This is something which gets built into
gcc-cross-canadian-${TARGET_ARCH} (i.e i586/armpowerpc). Since we use
the target libs (inc libgcc) and everything in that package is multiple
platform enabled, I think the current behaviour is correct. It might
point an an invalid default sysroot but its up to the package
architecture specific environment files to correct that. This means the
one toolchain can be shared over multiple package architectures.

I'm open to other views of that but I think what we have there is
correct and should work with the above change.

Cheers,

Richard