From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dan.rpsys.net (5751f4a1.skybroadband.com [87.81.244.161]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A5DB724DC for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 21:53:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dan.rpsys.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id t2VLrRcq014582; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 22:53:27 +0100 Received: from dan.rpsys.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (dan.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id gU0fSTRibJQ9; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 22:53:27 +0100 (BST) Received: from [192.168.3.10] ([192.168.3.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by dan.rpsys.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id t2VLrC9m014577 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 31 Mar 2015 22:53:24 +0100 Message-ID: <1427838792.14020.368.camel@linuxfoundation.org> From: Richard Purdie To: Khem Raj Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 22:53:12 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <1427815329.14020.358.camel@linuxfoundation.org> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.10-0ubuntu1~14.10.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: openembedded-core Subject: Re: [PATCH] siteinfo: Add x86_64-elf support X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 31 Mar 2015 21:53:31 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Tue, 2015-03-31 at 11:03 -0700, Khem Raj wrote: > > On Mar 31, 2015, at 8:22 AM, Richard Purdie wrote: > > > > Teach siteinfo about x86_64-elf so that baremetal toolchains parse/build. > > > > Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie > > > > diff --git a/meta/classes/siteinfo.bbclass b/meta/classes/siteinfo.bbclass > > index 2c1f9d0..5fd99bf 100644 > > --- a/meta/classes/siteinfo.bbclass > > +++ b/meta/classes/siteinfo.bbclass > > @@ -95,6 +95,7 @@ def siteinfo_data(d): > > "x86_64-linux": "bit-64", > > "x86_64-linux-musl": "x86_64-linux bit-64", > > "x86_64-linux-uclibc": "bit-64", > > + "x86_64-elf": "bit-64”, > > is 32bit bare metal already taken care of ? As far as I can tell, yes. x86_64 is more spelt out due to the x32 issues. Cheers, Richard