On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]> wrote: > Matt: > > There are several topics in your note, so I'm a bit confused. Let me try to > take them in turn. > >> I think a centos vm is closest to what I was advocating, and the path >> of least resistance from where are... > > > If the goal is to help people get set up quickly, I think that setting up a > reference VM image isn't helpful in practice. It is much faster to > net-install a CentOS image (or any other major distribution) by pulling from > the major repositories than it is to copy a reference virtual machine image. > > Once you have the base image installed, the Coyotos/CapROS host-xenv package > exists to ensure that any additional packages you need get installed. >
yeah, I suppose my main reason for a complete vm was its simple to host a single image containing everything from bit torrent/file locker/whatever, but if you don't mind hosting again that point is moot. >> so I started to look into llvm and outside of the pesky libstdc++ >> dependency... > > > I'm not clear why we would look at LLVM, unless perhaps for performance > reasons. There are some compiler features that LLVM is missing for kernel > compiles, but it might be worth a look. Basically I just wanted to evaluate if llvm suffered the same fate as a gcc port (requiring posix emulation), If a native port of llvm were possible and able to compile domains, To me it seemed worthwhile to then spend the effort in switching the cross toolchain to use it as a first step in a longer term effort. If llvm-on-capros were a dead end like GCC It'd seem like a waste of time/effort to me. As it is I didn't see any serious roadblocks Just alot of time/effort. The other thing was that the llvm toolchain stance to cross compiling is fairly different than what GCC does. By default a llvm/clang is built to target all the targets and so they are all cross compilers by default. As such it seemed like there were some possibly maintenance burden reduction possibilities there, e.g. if we could provide a driver library for anything needed that wasn't built into the centos llvm package or whatever. Anyhow... just the changes in the landscape since the cross tools were created seemed to warrant a reevaluation. > But if the goal is to be able to write domains in C++, I think a better path > is to get libstdc++ and g++ ported. this wasn't the goal, In fact was looking at linking c++ statically to avoid this, looking at it merely as 'dependency of the compiler' though I did note that supporting this would be a requirement for any genode-on-capros http://www.genode.org effort ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_mar _______________________________________________ CapROS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/capros-devel
