[oe] [PATCH][v3 3/4] uClibc: redo configuration
raj.khem at gmail.com
Thu Jul 8 23:12:16 CEST 2010
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Phil Blundell <philb at gnu.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 12:02 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
>> I would have a feature called 'nobx' because most of the machines
>> we support actively in OE has BX. With current state this needs to
>> be added to MACHINE features for almost all arm machines. We can instead
>> have nobx and keep USE_BX enabled and only disable it if nobx appears
>> in machine_features. Otherwise I have tested the patches myself
>> and they seems to work well.
> I'm not sure that putting bx (or nobx) in MACHINE_FEATURES really
> conveys any information that you can't already get from TARGET_ARCH plus
> THUMB_INTERWORK. It's also worth noting that the latter is a DISTRO
> variable so, if you did add a competing bx flag to MACHINE_FEATURES, it
> would be difficult to ensure that the two were consistent.
hmm TARGET_ARCH wouldnt be the one but BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH does have sub-arch
info. Although I would agree with you that we can build this information from
BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH but its not as bad to have it as a machine feature either.
More information about the Openembedded-devel