[OE-core] [PATCH v2] valgrind: Enable valgrind for armv7

[Samuel Stirtzel]

2012/5/30 Khem Raj <raj.khem at gmail.com>:
>
>
> On Wednesday, May 30, 2012, Samuel Stirtzel wrote:
>>
>> 2012/5/30 Khem Raj <raj.khem at gmail.com>:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wednesday, May 30, 2012, Samuel Stirtzel wrote:
>> >>
>> >> 2012/5/29 Khem Raj <raj.khem at gmail.com>:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> At some extend yes, the configuration checks the host, the default
>> >> >> string passed is "arm" but the configure.in checks for:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> case "${host_cpu}" in
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >>      armv7*)
>> >> >>       AC_MSG_RESULT([ok (${host_cpu})])
>> >> >>       ARCH_MAX="arm"
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > in OE we know that compiler is configured to generate code for armv7

What does this exactly mean, are non armv7 arches also running armv7 code?

>> >> > therefore you can safely change armv7* above in configure.in to be
>> >> > arm*
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> On this change I don't have a strong opinion (looks rather
>> >> cosmetically).
>> >> But sure I can send a follow up patch like you suggested.
>> >
>> >
>> > It is not cosmetic if you see it also enables it for non armv7 archs
>>
>> Maybe it is a misunderstanding?
>> Do you also want me to change:
>>
>> COMPATIBLE_HOST = '(i.86|x86_64|powerpc|powerpc64).*-linux'
>> COMPATIBLE_HOST_armv7a = 'arm.*-linux'
>>
>> to: COMPATIBLE_HOST = '(i.86|x86_64|powerpc|powerpc64||arm).*-linux'
>>
>> Else it would be only a cosmetic change, because the recipe is
>> preventing non armv7 arch.
>> Or am I mistaken?
>>
>
> Recipe and package itself are two different things I was commenting on
> package itself how it's baked in OE is a different thing

You want to pass configure for non armv7 arches but keep baking for
them disabled?
Sorry I don't get your point, if the machine is not armv7 compatible
then it is not compatible with valgrind.
If they are compatible there is no point in disallowing them to bake the recipe.

Yes it is a difference to enable them at recipe / package level, but
the effective use of this recipe / package restriction combination
does not appear useful (to me).
I think I just miss your point.


-- 
Regards
Samuel