OESF | ELSI | pdaXrom | OpenZaurus | Zaurus Themes | Community Links | Ibiblio

IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> on-board development dev-img-1.5 vs zgcc
datajerk
post Jun 16 2004, 07:30 AM
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 219
Joined: 14-February 04
Member No.: 1,861



Has any compared the two? Opinions?

Thanks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lpotter
post Jun 17 2004, 11:20 AM
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 451
Joined: 27-November 03
From: Brisbane, Australia
Member No.: 1,001



my opinion is why anyone would want to develop applications ON a zaurus.
smile.gif
Its soooo much easier to type on a full sized keyboard, and very much faster cross compiling on a desktop machine.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
datajerk
post Jun 17 2004, 12:11 PM
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 219
Joined: 14-February 04
Member No.: 1,861



Many ./configure scripts compile small test programs or run scripts check for other system info (e.g. uname -a) and get incorrect info. It can take sometime to get it all working. I'd rather ./configure on the native platform (arm in this case) and make and go to sleep. Some very large projects (like expect) fail not allowing a cross compile in ./configure.

xmkmf can also suck in an x-compile environment.

I prefer to use x-compile first, but if compiling natively on the Z although slow gets it built and takes less of my personal time vs spending hours changing scripts and manually running test programs etc..., then I'll take the native compile on the Z.

I would just like to have the option.

BTW the Z has a very large useable keyboard and screen if you just SSH into it. That is what I usually do when developing and testing scripts and other code.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
maslovsky
post Jul 28 2004, 10:26 PM
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 1,426
Joined: 22-October 03
Member No.: 89



Yes, I would also usualy connect to the Z via SSH and build programs on it. For example, I've built latest bluez and wifi drivers on Z (except for the modules, which are built with the kernel). All the ./configure scripts work just fine on a native platform...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vanstrien
post Sep 19 2004, 12:23 AM
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 58
Joined: 22-August 03
From: Houston / London
Member No.: 374



I used to use zgcc and now use dev-img. Zgcc was very good but dev-img has a lot more it, including perl and some documentation. It is also a bit more tide of an install once you get the hang of it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lardman
post Sep 19 2004, 02:04 AM
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 4,515
Joined: 25-October 03
From: Bath, UK
Member No.: 464



QUOTE
Many ./configure scripts compile small test programs or run scripts check for other system info (e.g. uname -a) and get incorrect info. It can take sometime to get it all working. I'd rather ./configure on the native platform (arm in this case) and make and go to sleep. Some very large projects (like expect) fail not allowing a cross compile in ./configure.


Absolutely; it's just a matter of deciding whether it'll take longer to alter the configure script by hand (setting variables to what you know they should be, running some snippets on the Z to find out what, etc.) and then compile on a quick machine, than to run the whole lot on the Z.

Sometimes I do think that I'd go the Z route, but it's far quicker IMO to edit the configure script.

That said, I'm still having troubles with R 1.9.0 (lack of time to alter configure mainly) so if anyone knows that one of these on-board compilers comes with F77 and is GCC3.xx then I may give it a go (I know there's another full featured compiler which meets these requirements from a Japanese web site, but again, I've not had time).


Si
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st December 2014 - 10:23 PM