arch-ia32: Add x32 to MACHINEOVERRIDES
PATCH 1/1 arch-ia32: Add x32 to MACHINEOVERRIDES
This will allow the KERNEL_FEATURES to trigger the x32 ABI via overrides
--- meta/conf/machine/include/ia32/arch-ia32.inc | 1 + 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
meta/conf/machine/include/ia32/arch-ia32.inc +1 -0
@@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ ABIEXTENSION .= "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "mx32", "x32", "" ,d)}" TUNE_CCARGS += "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "mx32", "-mx32", "", d)}" TUNE_LDARGS += "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "mx32", "-m elf32_x86_64", "", d)}" TUNE_ASARGS += "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "mx32", "-x32", "", d)}" +MACHINEOVERRIDES .= "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "mx32", ":x32", "" ,d)}" # ELF64 ABI TUNEVALID[m64] = "IA32e (x86_64) ELF64 standard ABI"
Signature · 1 line
1.7.7.6
Quoted 12 lines · Saul Wold
This will allow the
KERNEL_FEATURESto trigger the x32 ABI via overridesSigned-off-by Saul Wold <[email protected]>--- meta/conf/machine/include/ia32/arch-ia32.inc | 1 + 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)meta/conf/machine/include/ia32/arch-ia32.inc +0
-0
meta/conf/machine/include/ia32/arch-ia32.inc ABIEXTENSION .= "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "mx32", "x32", "" ,d)}" · line 30
Quoted 7 lines
meta/conf/machine/include/ia32/arch-ia32.inc +1
-0@@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ ABIEXTENSION .= "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "mx32", "x32", "" ,d)}" TUNE_CCARGS += "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "mx32", "-mx32", "", d)}" TUNE_LDARGS += "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "mx32", "-m elf32_x86_64", "", d)}" TUNE_ASARGS += "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "mx32", "-x32", "", d)}" +MACHINEOVERRIDES .= "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "mx32", ":x32", "" ,d)}" # ELF64 ABI TUNEVALID[m64] = "IA32e (x86_64) ELF64 standard ABI"
This is just for the kernel issue, right?
In that case, just use ${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "mx32", "xxxx", "" ,d)} in the kernel recipe code...
Cheers,
Richard
Quoted 18 lines · Richard Purdie
Quoted 17 lines · Saul Wold
This will allow the
KERNEL_FEATURESto trigger the x32 ABI via overridesSigned-off-by Saul Wold <[email protected]>--- meta/conf/machine/include/ia32/arch-ia32.inc | 1 + 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)meta/conf/machine/include/ia32/arch-ia32.inc +1
-0@@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ ABIEXTENSION .= "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "mx32", "x32", "" ,d)}" TUNE_CCARGS += "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "mx32", "-mx32", "", d)}" TUNE_LDARGS += "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "mx32", "-m elf32_x86_64", "", d)}" TUNE_ASARGS += "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "mx32", "-x32", "", d)}" +MACHINEOVERRIDES .= "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "mx32", ":x32", "" ,d)}"
Quoted 8 lines
meta/conf/machine/include/ia32/arch-ia32.inc ABIEXTENSION .= "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "mx32", "x32", "" ,d)}" · line 30
Quoted 2 lines
meta/conf/machine/include/ia32/arch-ia32.inc +0
-0# ELF64 ABI TUNEVALID[m64] = "IA32e (x86_64) ELF64 standard ABI"This is just for the kernel issue, right?
In that case, just use ${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "mx32", "xxxx", "" ,d)} in the kernel recipe code...
It's possible that there will be other recipes that need patches or other changes in the future, but I guess we can cross that bridge when we come to it.
I think I will actually use the features update that Bruce just added from here instead. Since multiple BSP could take advantage of x32 we should not have to edit each of there kernel recipes. It should just be enabled based on the x32 DEFAULTTUNE.
Thanks
Sau!
Quoted 6 lines
Cheers,
Richard
Quoted 27 lines · Saul Wold
Quoted 18 lines · Richard Purdie
Quoted 17 lines · Saul Wold
This will allow the
KERNEL_FEATURESto trigger the x32 ABI via overridesSigned-off-by Saul Wold <[email protected]>--- meta/conf/machine/include/ia32/arch-ia32.inc | 1 + 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)meta/conf/machine/include/ia32/arch-ia32.inc +1
-0@@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ ABIEXTENSION .= "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "mx32", "x32", "" ,d)}" TUNE_CCARGS += "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "mx32", "-mx32", "", d)}" TUNE_LDARGS += "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "mx32", "-m elf32_x86_64", "", d)}" TUNE_ASARGS += "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "mx32", "-x32", "", d)}" +MACHINEOVERRIDES .= "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "mx32", ":x32", "" ,d)}"Quoted 8 lines
meta/conf/machine/include/ia32/arch-ia32.inc ABIEXTENSION .= "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "mx32", "x32", "" ,d)}" · line 30
Quoted 2 lines
meta/conf/machine/include/ia32/arch-ia32.inc +0
-0# ELF64 ABI TUNEVALID[m64] = "IA32e (x86_64) ELF64 standard ABI"This is just for the kernel issue, right?
In that case, just use ${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "mx32", "xxxx", "" ,d)} in the kernel recipe code...
Quoted 8 lines
It's possible that there will be other recipes that need patches or other changes in the future, but I guess we can cross that bridge when we come to it.
I think I will actually use the features update that Bruce just added from here instead. Since multiple BSP could take advantage of x32 we should not have to edit each of there kernel recipes. It should just be enabled based on the x32 DEFAULTTUNE.
I know there are a few other things that can (and should) change behavior based on the x32 flag.. but flag or override, it just changes slightly the implementation mechanism -- either should work as long as we consistently use it.
--Mark
Quoted 17 lines
Thanks
Sau!Quoted 6 lines
Cheers,
Richard
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Quoted 27 lines · Saul Wold
Quoted 18 lines · Richard Purdie
Quoted 17 lines · Saul Wold
This will allow the
KERNEL_FEATURESto trigger the x32 ABI via overridesSigned-off-by Saul Wold <[email protected]>--- meta/conf/machine/include/ia32/arch-ia32.inc | 1 + 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)meta/conf/machine/include/ia32/arch-ia32.inc +1
-0@@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ ABIEXTENSION .= "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "mx32", "x32", "" ,d)}" TUNE_CCARGS += "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "mx32", "-mx32", "", d)}" TUNE_LDARGS += "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "mx32", "-m elf32_x86_64", "", d)}" TUNE_ASARGS += "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "mx32", "-x32", "", d)}" +MACHINEOVERRIDES .= "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "mx32", ":x32", "" ,d)}"Quoted 8 lines
meta/conf/machine/include/ia32/arch-ia32.inc ABIEXTENSION .= "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "mx32", "x32", "" ,d)}" · line 30
Quoted 2 lines
meta/conf/machine/include/ia32/arch-ia32.inc +0
-0# ELF64 ABI TUNEVALID[m64] = "IA32e (x86_64) ELF64 standard ABI"This is just for the kernel issue, right?
In that case, just use ${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "mx32", "xxxx", "" ,d)} in the kernel recipe code...
Quoted 8 lines
It's possible that there will be other recipes that need patches or other changes in the future, but I guess we can cross that bridge when we come to it.
I think I will actually use the features update that Bruce just added from here instead. Since multiple BSP could take advantage of x32 we should not have to edit each of there kernel recipes. It should just be enabled based on the x32 DEFAULTTUNE.
No, no, no. DEFAULTTUNE is a really bad idea for these kind of decisions, what if x32 is one of the other tunes enabled?
You're not the first person to use DEFAULTTUNE like this recently and its not what its intended for at all :/.
Also, the kernel features are specific to linux-yocto so you can't use them from a core ABI file.
Cheers,
Richard