On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 4:57 AM Alexey Brodkin <alexey.brodkin at synopsys.com> wrote: > > Hello, > > While upstreaming ARC bits in OE core I faced one interesting challenge. > > As of today we have 2 binary-incompatible 32-bit ISAs (Instruction Set Arch): > 1. ARCompact (AKA ARCv1) and > 2. ARCv2 > > In Binutils they have 2 separate machine numbers: EM_ARC_COMPACT=93 for ARCompact, > see [1] and EM_ARC_COMPACT2=195 for ARCv2, see [2]. > > Still we call them both "arc" and so I'm not sure what would be the right way > of handling that mess in OE's machine dictionary. mess is the right word. My preference would be to keep the newer one in OE as the support is new, > > For now I just have separate instances of "arc_machine_dict" for ARCompact [3] > and ARCv2 [4] and depending on what a given OE "machine" includes as "tune-arcX.inc" > build system uses one or another dictionary entry. > > Even though it works fine it doesn't fit into common dictionary in meta/lib/oe/elf.py. > > Any suggestions on how ARC machine dictionary might be upstreamed? you can define a separate arch like x32 is for x86_64 arch. but I think PACKAGEQA_EXTRA_MACHDEFFUNCS is a way to hook in such ana > > -Alexey > > [1] https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=blob;f=include/elf/common.h;h=e194274305663f565c6beee5ec21dbed70cdac46;hb=HEAD#l202 > [2] https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=blob;f=include/elf/common.h;h=e194274305663f565c6beee5ec21dbed70cdac46;hb=HEAD#l309 > [3] > https://github.com/foss-for-synopsys-dwc-arc-processors/meta-synopsys/blob/083958dedbd60c022432a17e952638a41e37c3dc/conf/machine/include/tune-arcompact.inc#L25 > [4] > https://github.com/foss-for-synopsys-dwc-arc-processors/meta-synopsys/blob/083958dedbd60c022432a17e952638a41e37c3dc/conf/machine/include/tune-arcv2.inc#L38
