[oe] [PATCH] base.bbclass: introduce COMPATIBLE_TARGET_SYS

[Frans Meulenbroeks]

2010/7/11 Frans Meulenbroeks <fransmeulenbroeks at gmail.com>:
> 2010/7/11 Phil Blundell <philb at gnu.org>:
>> On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 18:19 +0200, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
>>> This patch introduces COMPATIBLE_TARGET_SYS
>>> It is similar to COMPATIBLE_MACHINE but where COMPATIBLE_MACHINE
>>> is used to specify that a certain recipe is for a certain machine
>>> COMPATIBLE_TARGET_SYS can be used to specify that a certain recipe
>>> is for a certain architecture.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Frans Meulenbroeks <fransmeulenbroeks at gmail.com>
>>
>> I think this should go in cross.bbclass, not base.bbclass.  Other than
>> that it looks fine.
>>
>
> I have no real preference for location. The only reason for putting it
> in base.bbclass is because that file also contains the tests for
> COMPATIBLE_MACHINE and COMPATIBLE_HOST.
> (as my pythonese is not that good I just copied/pasted/edited/tested there)
> Please advice

Thinking about it again, base.bbclass seems a better place to me.
This test could also apply at compiling non-cross stuff (e.g. if a
recipe contains inline asm that is not ported)
and of course for recipes like gcc, if the arch or sys is not
supported, it'll be for cross and target.
I'm not too good at the build system internals, but I expect that gcc
(not gcc-cross) does not use cross.bbclass. (and I guess we want to
say for gcc too that it is not compatible)
So I feel base.bbclass look like a better place.

Frans.
>
> Wrt the clarification of khem in the other thread:
> What about adding a COMPATIBLE_TARGET_ARCH test  too ? (actually I
> think that that is the one I would like to use at one place (although
> ofc it is quite possible to use COMPATIBLE_TARGET_SYS).
> (e.g. gblic has arch specific sysdeps, I would like to specify if a
> version of glibc does not specify my arch).
>
> Frans
>