Re: [RFC 2/5] tune-xscale, tune-arm926ejs: add OPTDEFAULTTUNE variable and use more generic DEFAULTTUNE as default

[Phil Blundell <philb@gnu.org>]

On Thu, 2012-09-27 at 13:58 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote:
> I've been an advocate for a while that the processor optimization (CCARGS) does 
> make it into the PKGARCH.  ARMPKGSFX_CPU seems like a reasonable approach to do 
> this.  It allows each tune to set something to tell people what that binary is 
> really built for, and for the 'base' tunes (i.e. armv5) it can be left off.

I think we've discussed this before but, just to reiterate, this sort of
thing is a matter of DISTRO policy.  It is perfectly legitimate to want
to build binaries with, say, -march=armv5te -mtune=arm926ej-s and have
them end up with PACKAGE_ARCH="armv5te" or even just "arm".

It seems to me that we are in danger of adding a lot of complicated and
hard-to-understand machinery to oe-core in an attempt to solve a problem
that ought to be getting solved by the DISTRO, and that by doing so we
might be making life harder rather than easier for DISTROs which happen
to want a slightly different labelling model to the default.

p.