From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga06.intel.com ([134.134.136.21] helo=orsmga101.jf.intel.com) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RBV7M-00044s-W3 for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2011 19:18:53 +0200 Received: from mail-wy0-f180.google.com ([74.125.82.180]) by mga02.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 05 Oct 2011 10:10:49 -0700 Received: by wyh11 with SMTP id 11so1947088wyh.25 for ; Wed, 05 Oct 2011 10:10:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.29.85 with SMTP id p21mr3476319wbc.84.1317834645847; Wed, 05 Oct 2011 10:10:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.6.18.230] (c-71-193-189-117.hsd1.wa.comcast.net. [71.193.189.117]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id s30sm3972910wbm.12.2011.10.05.10.10.43 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 05 Oct 2011 10:10:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E8C8F91.1000203@intel.com> Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 10:10:41 -0700 From: Saul Wold Organization: Intel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110906 Thunderbird/6.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer References: <1317765787-19127-1-git-send-email-msm@freescale.com> <1317765787-19127-5-git-send-email-msm@freescale.com> <4E8B9F2C.5030706@gmail.com> <1317814555.14671.137.camel@ted> In-Reply-To: Cc: McClintock Matthew-B29882 Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] Fix sysprof for powerpc64 X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 17:18:53 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 10/05/2011 10:06 AM, Khem Raj wrote: > On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 9:48 AM, McClintock Matthew-B29882 > wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 6:35 AM, Richard Purdie >> wrote: >>>> this is a gcc built-in define I wonder why you need to add it explicitly >>> >>> Are you sure? Is the built-in define not __powerpc64__ ? >> >> Further investigation: >> >> [mattsm@right build_p5020ds-64b_release (testing $)]$ >> ./tmp/sysroots/x86_64-linux/usr/bin/ppc64e5500-fsl-linux/powerpc64-fsl-linux-gcc >> -c -E -dM empty.c | grep __p >> #define __powerpc64__ 1 >> #define __powerpc__ 1 >> [mattsm@right build_p5020ds-64b_release (testing $)]$ > > yes I was trying it with a differently configured gcc. For linux gcc > defines __powerpc64__ > and for darwin it has __ppc64__ as builtin define. > > I think adding check for __powerpc64__ and __powerpc__ > would be nice and can be submitted to sysprof upstream IMO > I think this would be a good fix to have in the upstream sysprof and it would remove the CFLAGS_append from the recipe. Sau! >> >> -M >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Openembedded-core mailing list >> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org >> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core >> > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core >