[OE-core] [PATCH] gcc: Add ability for tune files to pass in configure options to gcc

[Kumar Gala]

On Aug 1, 2011, at 11:57 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:

> On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 09:44 -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
>> On 08/01/2011 09:07 AM, Phil Blundell wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 09:37 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
>>>> Not sure I understand the statement about disambiguate the resulting compilers, on PPC where I intend to utilize this we'd have the toolchains already named something like:
>>> 
>>> The thing about disambiguating was that, if you're going to modify the
>>> configure opts for gcc-cross based (indirectly) on ${MACHINE} you need
>>> to consider what happens if you have a single build directory that's
>>> being used for multiple MACHINEs.
>> 
>> What, I think, Kumar is driving at is why are you saying MACHINE when
>> it's a per core tune he's doing.  eg, every e5500 would do --with-cpu=e5500
> 
> The question is whether we'd like to get to the point of having more
> toolchains or less toolchains. I'd personally like to get to the point
> of less toolchains (e.g. one per arch) rather than more of them. We
> already pass all the appropriate flags around in the ADT/sdk code and in
> our own cross builds, we could easily add those to the default target
> environment too. This would actually make it clearer what is going on to
> the end user too rather than hiding the details into the gcc
> compilation.
> 
> So all things considered, I don't think this is the best way to go...
> 

How is this done or exported to the user of an ADT/sdk toolchain?

- k