Re: [meta-oe][PATCH] llvm3.2: new recipe

[Marcin Juszkiewicz <marcin@juszkiewicz.com.pl>]

W dniu 11.06.2013 09:48, Khem Raj pisze:
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 2:55 AM, Marcin Juszkiewicz
> <marcin@juszkiewicz.com.pl> wrote:
>> W dniu 02.06.2013 11:33, Jonathan Liu pisze:
>>> +def get_llvm_arch(d):
>>> +    import bb;
>>> +
>>> +    arch = bb.data.getVar('TARGET_ARCH', d, 1)
>>> +
>>> +    if arch == "x86_64" or arch == "i486" or arch == "i586" or arch == "i686":
>>> +        arch = "x86"
>>> +    elif arch == "x86_64":
>>> +        arch = "x86_64"
>>> +    elif arch == "arm":
>>> +        arch = "arm"
>>> +    elif arch == "mipsel" or arch == "mips":
>>> +        arch = "mips"
>>> +    elif arch == "powerpc" or arch == "powerpc64":
>>> +        arch = "powerpc"
>>> +    else:
>>> +        bb.warn("%s does not support %s yet" % (bb.data.getVar('PN', d, 1), arch) );
>>> +
>>> +    return arch
>>
>> Can we get rid of such blocks? They are worthless and only generate
>> extra support questions when OE newbies use OE with 'not supported'
>> architectures.

> why do you think they are worthless ? when they give good information
> instead of failing to build and then generating support question 
> which need more work to come to same conclusion

$ MACHINE=genericarmv8 bitbake nano
"llvm is not supported"
"openjdk is not supported"
"another-thing-you-do-not-care-for-this-build is not supported"

This is how your builds look for not supported architectures.

OE has COMPATIBLE_HOST variable which can be used by recipe maintainers
to mark which architectures are supported.