From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from astoria.ccjclearline.com (astoria.ccjclearline.com [64.235.106.9]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 514A1738FB for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 09:35:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [99.240.204.5] (port=60670 helo=crashcourse.ca) by astoria.ccjclearline.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YTof5-0005t5-Dj; Fri, 06 Mar 2015 04:35:15 -0500 Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 04:35:06 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert P. J. Day" X-X-Sender: rpjday@Device-040570 To: Mike Looijmans In-Reply-To: <54F9700E.1050501@topic.nl> Message-ID: References: <54F9700E.1050501@topic.nl> User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (LFD 23 2013-08-11) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - astoria.ccjclearline.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.openembedded.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - crashcourse.ca X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: is standard for COMPATIBLE_MACHINE to use "()" or not? 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: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 09:35:18 -0000 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="-1463811327-1660936856-1425634514=:11154" ---1463811327-1660936856-1425634514=:11154 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT On Fri, 6 Mar 2015, Mike Looijmans wrote: > On 05-03-15 09:43, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > > > a style guide thing ... it appears that COMPATIBLE_MACHINE happily > > acccepts a matching RE within parentheses or not, is there a > > preference? > > > > also, in checking that, i ran across this in oe-core: > > > > linux-yocto_3.14.bb:COMPATIBLE_MACHINE = > > "qemuarm|qemuarm64|qemux86|qemuppc|qemumips|qemumips64|qemux86-64" > > linux-yocto_3.19.bb:COMPATIBLE_MACHINE = > > "qemuarm|qemuarm64|qemux86|qemuppc|qemumips|qemumips64|qemux86-64" > > linux-yocto-dev.bb:COMPATIBLE_MACHINE = > > "(qemuarm|qemux86|qemuppc|qemumips|qemumips64|qemux86-64)" > > The regex should have been "qemu(arm|x86|ppc|mips|mips64|x86-64)" > > And since "x86-64" already matches "x86", that could have been omitted. > > > where the first two recipes list "qemuarm64" but the dev version > > doesn't ... is that deliberate? > > Probably not, but "qemuarm64" matches "qemuarm" already. more nitpcking pedantry, but as i read it from the python code in base.bbclass: need_machine = d.getVar('COMPATIBLE_MACHINE', True) if need_machine: import re compat_machines = (d.getVar('MACHINEOVERRIDES', True) or "").split(":") for m in compat_machines: if re.match(need_machine, m): break the "re.match"ing does not implicitly anchor the RE to the beginning or end of string, correct? it couldn't, or "qemuarm64" could not possibly match "qemuarm". does that not suggest that one should add those anchors to avoid the (admittedly unlikely) situation where i define a machine named, say, "rdayqemux86" which, as i read it, will match a "qemux86" machine even if i didn't want it to? would i then avoid this by setting: COMPATIBLE_MACHINE = "^rdayqemu" to match *all* machines whose names *start* with "rdayqemu"? this really isn't explained carefully anywhere i can see. rday -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA http://crashcourse.ca Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday ======================================================================== ---1463811327-1660936856-1425634514=:11154--