[oe] Add Intel Core 2 machine support (prescott and nocona)

[Leon Woestenberg]

Hello Richard,

thanks for your feedback!

On 8/21/07, Richard Purdie <rpurdie at rpsys.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 23:52 +0200, Leon Woestenberg wrote:
> > My current proposal is:
> >
> > ...
> > conf/machine/x86_64-nocona.conf
> > conf/machine/include/x86_64-nocona.conf
> > -arch=nocona
> > TARGET_ARCH=x86_64
> >
> > starting with GCC 4.3:
> > conf/machine/x86_64-core2.conf
> > conf/machine/include/x86_64-core2.conf
> > -arch=core2
> > TARGET_ARCH=x86_64
>
> Please don't use '_' in the names. It may work but it has the potential
> to mess up bitbake's override handling and would be better avoided. I
> know people have had issues with "x86_64" already due to this.
>

What are the constraints TARGET_ARCH should meet?

Does it have anything to do with the GNU machine tuple?

Doesn't TARGET_ARCH propogated into several package's configure/Makefile's etc?

For example:

linux-libc-headers:

do_configure () {
    case ${TARGET_ARCH} in
        alpha*)   ARCH=alpha ;;
        arm*)     ARCH=arm ;;
        cris*)    ARCH=cris ;;
        hppa*)    ARCH=parisc ;;
        i*86*)    ARCH=i386 ;;
        ia64*)    ARCH=ia64 ;;
        mips*)    ARCH=mips ;;
        m68k*)    ARCH=m68k ;;
        powerpc*) ARCH=ppc ;;
        s390*)    ARCH=s390 ;;
        sh*)      ARCH=sh ;;
        sparc64*) ARCH=sparc64 ;;
        sparc*)   ARCH=sparc ;;
        x86_64*)  ARCH=x86_64 ;;
    esac
    if test !  -e include/asm-$ARCH; then
        oefatal unable to create asm symlink in kernel headers
    fi



> When using optimised output like that you really do need to use a
> different TARGET_ARCH since as you say, the packages will not run on
> standard i686/x86_64...
>
That's why I suggested "x86_64-nocona".

I could only think of using "amd64" instead of "x86_64" but most
distributions are favouring the last one over the first one recently.


Regards,

Leon.