From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-io0-f181.google.com (mail-io0-f181.google.com [209.85.223.181]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECD6977C20 for ; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 16:29:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io0-f181.google.com with SMTP id l7so8121255ioe.3 for ; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 09:29:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=AM52T5dVbCjTaPEoDQXLaAtm4ptkbw44lrm1Z8d6KKg=; b=y4gleHZHj+klh3Sw2WdsKmu3V4t3uQHB6IXUTVV0EUKMtbSQco03scpkp0poVj2qUL TMSBLVA34PXhp3N2SZY2M+sVHpCSAoNdq4Wz3WRRbC8To38hggqegIyWEK4uEAi/qCJT gNTvUsxDssnaKKxp0wZYtyhPRi1zXZvOiNUQ05vIuKDVcgLycR2kqKHwUKnqqS+p32Ss 1t/NM7450oByBepwye3CJ30uJjAvV+DW0FQ6otLHBt3pJ9iVbX3T7+lcftjShSVqq938 TTgA7pI4+F3vq6gSfjfR+QwdpD2T7U3ws44Cq5a7sPLj7BW1Xes7TadxHW0JzBVcuht1 Y/7A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=AM52T5dVbCjTaPEoDQXLaAtm4ptkbw44lrm1Z8d6KKg=; b=YoSQowqLCsizlCPbAdNhISTIY+bcDSS3nslrhTzzpRqExskYZ6SPRlG8X2O/xwCiWm BZUrXIgJ2xM0yWtMvJhbGrrbZ936/EO3CsEslY1GjHhAdONZcmEl96eIcZwIilOKae5h krAhGpo5LrqqzkQPhl8VTq8qtC4bDrdI9kmicEeYk8uCVr5eDMDOHiseqiaDyYBxini4 t3xDdPn0U+eAS73Epv4K5WM6Zkcq0412Qqwxba0K2vZyea1E/dn+3z8YcGLJ/ce3/OMX MRc4HqKVj1QgqZaHA2d89+ci4y1BNu+EO1CpyJOq/evQydxjBPV61pSKt9+UcGbtQNHs 7quQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/7sPkpVPsx23eIhlA2f94W1yCS3eOpaNmCj6Gr71hPeFYt91tK4XQpsUsGx8DFHHhVK X-Received: by 10.36.175.28 with SMTP id t28mr13849587ite.119.1491928144519; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 09:29:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pohly-mobl1 (p5DE8D3A2.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [93.232.211.162]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 189sm1096599itx.25.2017.04.11.09.29.02 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 11 Apr 2017 09:29:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1491928140.10884.191.camel@intel.com> From: Patrick Ohly To: Mark Hatle , Richard Purdie Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 18:29:00 +0200 In-Reply-To: <97be7aaf-58b0-05a2-b352-942cd82aca01@windriver.com> References: <5a067d85afa569bc5b03df89acdb5914ccd86764.1491922350.git-series.patrick.ohly@intel.com> <97be7aaf-58b0-05a2-b352-942cd82aca01@windriver.com> Organization: Intel GmbH, Dornacher Strasse 1, D-85622 Feldkirchen/Munich X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.9-1+b1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/8] gdb-cross: avoid tune specific paths 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, 11 Apr 2017 16:29:05 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, 2017-04-11 at 10:16 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote: > On 4/11/17 9:56 AM, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > gdb-cross used to be specific to the tune flags, but isn't > > anymore. Therefore it is enough to use TARGET_SYS instead of > > TUNE_PKGARCH to create a unique path. > > Are you sure about this. It's what Richard told me and he proposed this fix (forgot to mention that), so ultimately this is a question for him. > On non-intel architectures, it used to be VERY common > that the specific instruction set for a process was programmed into gdb. I'm not seeing anything in gdb-cross where that happens. The TUNEFLAGS dependency was just for the datadir, not for anything else that might configure the instruction set. -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter.