From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.reciva.com ([109.169.29.93] helo=crown.reciva.com) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OcFKB-0003ev-2k for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 12:17:53 +0200 Received: from [62.7.80.98] (helo=lurch.internal.reciva.com) by crown.reciva.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OcFJz-0008Sk-5K for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:17:39 +0100 Received: from mill.internal.reciva.com ([192.168.106.87] ident=pb) by lurch.internal.reciva.com with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1OcFJy-0002kD-U1 for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:17:39 +0100 From: Phil Blundell To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org In-Reply-To: <1279875548.13006.32.camel@rex> References: <1279735486-7050-1-git-send-email-raj.khem@gmail.com> <1279872152.21888.149.camel@lenovo.internal.reciva.com> <1279875548.13006.32.camel@rex> Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:17:38 +0100 Message-ID: <1279880258.2692.15.camel@mill.internal.reciva.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.1.2 X-Broken-Reverse-DNS: no host name found for IP address 62.7.80.98 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 109.169.29.93 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: philb@gnu.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on discovery X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no version=3.2.5 X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:20:07 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on linuxtogo.org) Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4][RFC] Remove CROSS_DIR, install cross-packages into native sysroot X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 10:17:53 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 09:59 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 10:11 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote: > > It's all 'arm-angstrom-foo', I was just about to make the suggestion to > > change it to 'armv7a-angstrom-foo' :) > > I've just been talking to Koen about this. When building for armv7a, > TARGET_ARCH which goes into TARGET_PREFIX and TARGET_SYS is "arm". Ah, right, I see. > I suspect if we change TARGET_ARCH to be armv7a, nasty things will > happen but I could be wrong. I can't think offhand of any bad thing that would result from doing that. It certainly might be worth a try. On the other hand, I also can't think offhand of any significant way in which the gcc builds for different subarches are going to be different. The architecture selection is all done at run time using -march in CFLAGS, isn't it? > Is that libiberty.a file actually useful or could we just stop > binutils-cross installing it? No, it isn't useful. p.