OESF Portal | OESF Forum | OESF Wiki | LinuxPDA | #planetgemini chat on matrix.org | #gemini-pda chat on Freenode | #zaurus and #alarmz chat on Freenode | ELSI (coming soon) | Ibiblio


Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

> on-board development dev-img-1.5 vs zgcc
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?

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Start new topic
post Sep 19 2004, 02:04 AM
Post #2

Group: Members
Posts: 4,512
Joined: 25-October 03
From: Bath, UK
Member No.: 464

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).

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:


RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th April 2018 - 04:30 PM