Architectures with underscores in their names, how to handle that?

Architectures with underscores in their names, how to handle that?

[Koen Kooi]

Hi,

I'm working on adding support for big-endian armv8 and the toolchain people decided that it should be named 'aarch64_eb'. That currently works in OE because there isn't a 'eb' override yet, but there might be one in the future.

So my question is, how can I safely handle a name like this?

regards,

Koen

Re: Architectures with underscores in their names, how to handle that?

[Khem Raj]

On Oct 9, 2013, at 11:27 PM, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I'm working on adding support for big-endian armv8 and the toolchain people decided that it should be named 'aarch64_eb'. That currently works in OE because there isn't a 'eb' override yet, but there might be one in the future.
> 

why not suggest them to use aarch64eb is that too hard a change ?
it matches other known Big Endian naming conventions like mips and so on in autotools world.

> So my question is, how can I safely handle a name like this?
> 
> regards,
> 
> Koen
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

Re: Architectures with underscores in their names, how to handle that?

[Fathi Boudra]

On 10 October 2013 09:30, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:
> why not suggest them to use aarch64eb is that too hard a change ?

We've done it but the counter argument is that toolchains are already
out there with an official release.
The upstream FSF GCC 4.8, Binutils 2.23, EGLIBC 2.18 releases. So
basically the community has accepted the triplet.

> it matches other known Big Endian naming conventions like mips and so on in autotools world.

Re: Architectures with underscores in their names, how to handle that?

[Richard Purdie]

On Thu, 2013-10-10 at 08:27 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm working on adding support for big-endian armv8 and the toolchain
> people decided that it should be named 'aarch64_eb'. That currently
> works in OE because there isn't a 'eb' override yet, but there might
> be one in the future.
> 
> So my question is, how can I safely handle a name like this?

I suspect we'll just have to be careful never to add an "eb" override,
in much the same way as a 64 override would also cause problems for
x86_64. There is code in place to change the _ to - for package feed
use.

Longer term I'd like to see us find a better character for overrides
than the current use of "_" but that would be a fair bit of work to
achieve. I'd like to think that would performance as well as readablity
of .bb files but I've yet to prove it.

Cheers,

Richard