[OE-core] [PATCH v3] binutils : enable x86_64-pep for producing EFI binaries on x86/x86-64

[Burton, Ross]

On 27 July 2018 at 00:51, Christopher Clark
<christopher.w.clark at gmail.com> wrote:
> +ENABLE_EXTRA_TARGETS ?= "--enable-targets=${ARCH_EFI_EMULATION}"

This has an interesting implication in that it's not building support
for all targets now, specifically buildhistory-diff shows that large
chunks are no longer being built:

--rw-r--r-- root       root            15269
./usr/src/debug/binutils/2.31-r0/git/elfcpp/mips.h
--rw-r--r-- root       root             9539
./usr/src/debug/binutils/2.31-r0/git/elfcpp/powerpc.h
--rw-r--r-- root       root             5994
./usr/src/debug/binutils/2.31-r0/git/elfcpp/s390.h
--rw-r--r-- root       root             8243
./usr/src/debug/binutils/2.31-r0/git/elfcpp/sparc.h
--rw-r--r-- root       root             5654
./usr/src/debug/binutils/2.31-r0/git/elfcpp/tilegx.h
--rw-r--r-- root       root           329045
./usr/src/debug/binutils/2.31-r0/git/gold/powerpc.cc
--rw-r--r-- root       root           136896
./usr/src/debug/binutils/2.31-r0/git/gold/sparc.cc
etc

(that's a diff, so the leading - is a removal marker)

So binutils on x86 only support x86, but binutils for ARM supports all
architectures.  Inconsistency doesn't seem right. Can we *add*
x86_64-pep to the target list? Or can we make all binutils just build
their native formats?

Ross