[OE-core] [PATCH 1/3] arch-x86: Add x86-x32 to MACHINEOVERRIDES

[Saul Wold]

On Thu, 2017-09-21 at 09:15 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-09-19 at 11:27 -0700, Saul Wold wrote:
> > This is needed as an x32 more generic x32 override later in the
> > OVERRIDES, currently linux-gnux32 is the first override, but we
> > need a stronger (later in the list) x32 override to deal with some
> > needed x32 dependency overrides.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Saul Wold <sgw at linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> >  meta/conf/machine/include/x86/arch-x86.inc | 1 +
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/meta/conf/machine/include/x86/arch-x86.inc
> > b/meta/conf/machine/include/x86/arch-x86.inc
> > index e51d595f74..31d30b3304 100644
> > --- a/meta/conf/machine/include/x86/arch-x86.inc
> > +++ b/meta/conf/machine/include/x86/arch-x86.inc
> > @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@ TUNE_LDARGS += "${@bb.utils.contains('TUNE_FEATUR
> > ES', 'mx32', '-m elf32_x86_64',
> >  TUNE_ASARGS += "${@bb.utils.contains('TUNE_FEATURES', 'mx32', '-
> > x32', '', d)}"
> >  # user mode qemu doesn't support x32
> >  MACHINE_FEATURES_BACKFILL_CONSIDERED_append = " ${@bb.utils.contai
> > ns('TUNE_FEATURES', 'mx32', 'qemu-usermode', '', d)}"
> > +MACHINEOVERRIDES =. "${@bb.utils.contains('TUNE_FEATURES', 'mx32',
> > 'x86_x32:', '' ,d)}"
> >  
> >  # ELF64 ABI
> >  TUNEVALID[m64] = "IA32e (x86_64) ELF64 standard ABI"
> 
> I was ok with this until I realised the patch does not do what it
> says
> in the commit message, it adds "x86_x32", not "x86-x32". Since "_" is
> the override modifier, I worry about how this reacts with the rest of
> the system and I suspect its a bad idea. Is there a reason you didn't
> use "x86-x32" (following the example of x86-64)?
> 
Typo, possibly or had not considered the override issue.

v2 in flight shortly.

Sau!

> Cheers,
> 
> Richard