OESF Portables Forum

Everything Else => Zaurus - Everything Development => Distros, Development, and Model Specific Forums => Archived Forums => Qt/Qtopia => Topic started by: datajerk on June 16, 2004, 11:30:13 am

Title: on-board development dev-img-1.5 vs zgcc
Post by: datajerk on June 16, 2004, 11:30:13 am

Has any compared the two?  Opinions?

Thanks.

Title: on-board development dev-img-1.5 vs zgcc
Post by: lpotter on June 17, 2004, 03:20:57 pm

my opinion is why anyone would want to develop applications ON a zaurus.

Its soooo much easier to type on a full sized keyboard, and very much faster cross compiling on a desktop machine.

Title: on-board development dev-img-1.5 vs zgcc
Post by: datajerk on June 17, 2004, 04:11:25 pm

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.

Title: on-board development dev-img-1.5 vs zgcc
Post by: maslovsky on July 29, 2004, 02:26:07 am

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...

Title: on-board development dev-img-1.5 vs zgcc
Post by: vanstrien on September 19, 2004, 04:23:46 am

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.

Title: on-board development dev-img-1.5 vs zgcc
Post by: lardman on September 19, 2004, 06:04:00 am

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