cygwin and embedded linux
Hi, I built a toolchain for ppc under cygwin about a year ago. I used the Billgatliff's script(http://crossgcc.billgatliff.com/build-crossgcc.sh) It failed to build glibc. So I copied glibc from a linux machine. I've been using the toolchain, without any problem, for our custom MPC755 board, for about a year. I recommand the Billgatliff's script, if you are going to make a tool chain for ppc under cygwin. - Sangmoon Kim - - Original Message - From: "Dan Malek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Kenneth Johansson" Cc: "Dr. Craig Hollabaugh" ; "Marius Groeger" ; "John Fisher" ; "Linuxppc embedded" Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2002 9:11 AM Subject: Re: cygwin and embedded linux > > Kenneth Johansson wrote: > > > And I remember what you thought about people like me that tried to make > > the cross compile environment going. > > The only opinion I have changed is that people that can actually make > this work well (and I know of only a couple) have a special talent > and I really like them to hang around :-) > > I guess when you work for a large company that will pay your salary regardless > of missing schedules and can only provide half-assed tools you have to > cobble together to make things work, you are both lucky and have my sympathy. > I don't have the patience or development time to create or debug my > development tools, they just have to work. I'm not using anything that > anyone else can't go out and purchase or download, and it continues to > baffle me why people won't take the easy route to developing software. > > > > But it finally did work out OK and nowadays all you really need to now > > is what parameters to give the configure script. > > There is LOTS more to creating an easy to use and properly created set > of development tools than knowing some parameters to configure scripts. > Only a couple of people I know understand the magic, and it isn't documented. > I'm just going to rely on them to make my job easier :-) > > Have fun! > > > -- Dan > > > > ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
cygwin and embedded linux
Kenneth Johansson wrote: > And I remember what you thought about people like me that tried to make > the cross compile environment going. The only opinion I have changed is that people that can actually make this work well (and I know of only a couple) have a special talent and I really like them to hang around :-) I guess when you work for a large company that will pay your salary regardless of missing schedules and can only provide half-assed tools you have to cobble together to make things work, you are both lucky and have my sympathy. I don't have the patience or development time to create or debug my development tools, they just have to work. I'm not using anything that anyone else can't go out and purchase or download, and it continues to baffle me why people won't take the easy route to developing software. > But it finally did work out OK and nowadays all you really need to now > is what parameters to give the configure script. There is LOTS more to creating an easy to use and properly created set of development tools than knowing some parameters to configure scripts. Only a couple of people I know understand the magic, and it isn't documented. I'm just going to rely on them to make my job easier :-) Have fun! -- Dan ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
cygwin and embedded linux
On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, I wrote: > 2. The "emulation" will never be 100%. Maybe 99%. Maybe 99.99%. That last >fraction can be a major PITA, because it is not obvious. To compile a >kernel you need a lot of tools with a lot of explicit and implicit twists >to them. It is just a gut feeling that I wouldn't want to rely on this, >if I don't have to. The native way just seems the better way to do it to >me. Since the term "native" seems to have triggered many other (very interesting) posts, just for completeness: in fact I chose bad wording for what I wanted to say in this post. In this case, with "native" I merely meant a real Linux box (vs. a Windows box), not necessarily a native ppc-linux machine. Native ppc-linux is definitely one way to go, although I'd tend to hold with one of the other posts to this thread. It pointed out the necessity/robustness/repoducability/beauty of clearly distincting between the host and the target. Regards, Marius - Marius Groeger SYSGO Real-Time Solutions GmbH mgroeger at sysgo.de Software Engineering Embedded and Real-Time Softwarewww.sysgo.de Voice: +49-6136-9948-0 Am Pfaffenstein 14 www.osek.de FAX: +49-6136-9948-10 55270 Klein-Winternheim, Germany www.elinos.com ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
cygwin and embedded linux
On Fri, 2002-08-23 at 07:18, Dan Malek wrote: > > Dr. Craig Hollabaugh wrote: > > > I'm curious ... > > > > How many out there actually are compiling PPC code natively on a PowerPC > > Linux box for their embedded devices? > > Me. And I remember what you thought about people like me that tried to make the cross compile environment going. Lucky you that I managed to delete my old mbox otherwise I could repost some interesting mail :) But it finally did work out OK and nowadays all you really need to now is what parameters to give the configure script. -- Kenneth Johansson Ericsson AB Tel: +46 8 404 71 83 Borgafjordsgatan 9Fax: +46 8 404 72 72 164 80 Stockholm kenneth.johansson at etx.ericsson.se ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
cygwin and embedded linux
> How many out there actually are compiling PPC code natively > on a PowerPC Linux box for their embedded devices? Not me. I cross compile all my distributions from x86 hosts. I like the idea of separating the target system from the host system. To keep track of used libraries and to be able to recreate the same distribution in the future with another host. I've always wanted a sleek laptop from apple, but I would like more than one mouse button... / magnus ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
cygwin and embedded linux
At 01:00 PM 8/22/2002 +0200, Magnus Damm wrote: > > Are there others in this situation and how have they chosen to solve it? [snip] >Another way to solve it would be to switch to Linux and use VNC to >connect >to your Windows boxes. I'm not sure how well this works out, though. Very well. It comes with a Windows client that works well. The linux server works very well with minimal slowdown compared to a native X session (I use Exceed for X on Windows). If I didn't already own Exceed, I would use VNC exclusively. (The Windows server also works quite well, but not as well as VNC on linux because Windows isn't really set up to do remote windows so it has to work a lot harder and is slower as a result.) The default window manager (TWM?) is very basic so you may want to spend some time getting it set up better or getting a more elaborate WM running. What is really cool about VNC is that you can start a job, reboot your Windows box 5 times to install some trivial piece of hardware :-), re-attach to your VNC session that was busy running your job all the while, just in time to see your job complete. gvb >/ magnus [snip] ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
cygwin and embedded linux
At 05:39 PM 8/22/2002 -0600, Dr. Craig Hollabaugh wrote: >At 09:36 AM 8/22/2002 +0200, Marius Groeger wrote: > >2. The "emulation" will never be 100%. Maybe 99%. Maybe 99.99%. That last > > fraction can be a major PITA, because it is not obvious. To compile a > > kernel you need a lot of tools with a lot of explicit and implicit twists > > to them. It is just a gut feeling that I wouldn't want to rely on this, > > if I don't have to. The native way just seems the better way to do it to > > me. > >Just because your running on Linux doesn't mean anything because your >duplicating >the environment for cross-compiling anyway. So what does it matter if >cygwin runs >the cross tools or if Linux runs them? > > > >I'm curious ... > >How many out there actually are compiling PPC code natively on a PowerPC >Linux box for their embedded devices? > >If so, do you run the same development versions on your desktop? > >How do you handle the FPU issues? > >Craig We've done native on an iMac and cross on X86 linux. Additional problems with Cygwin, from my point of view, is that you will always be trailing the mainstream development because the Cygwin tools are based on the native linux toolsets rebuilt (perhaps with customizations) to allow them to run under DOS. In addition, there are only a fraction as many engineers using Cygwin vs. linux so your pool of "informed developers" to ask questions of is much smaller. Perhaps both of those objections go away if you pay for Cygwin support :-). My limited experience with Cygwin is that it is like cutting with a dull knife: it can get the job done, but you have to work harder and the results are a little more ragged than they should be. gvb ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
cygwin and embedded linux ... a little OT
Our company at the beginning of last year just added Linux to our development platforms. There are a lot of free tools to make using two OS's Linux and Windows very easy. Firstly there is the question of weather to have a single big and expensive box for Linux development that all developers log into and used for there development or does each developer have his own box that he uses. It does not have to be as expensive but still needs to be about the same specifications as his current windows box. Next is how do you get around the problem of an extra screen, keyboard, and mouse on the developers desktop. We started out using a non-freeware xserver for windows. This worked well for our evaluation but we quickly discovered the limitations. I have been using VNC on Linux and windows for a while now and it works very well. One big and expensive server about $9000USD separate machines about $700USD if you have more that 12 developers then maybe a big server but then you have need a bigger even more expensive server for 12 developers. If I was to set up a development environment again it would give each developer another PC the same specifications as his current windows PC running Linux (my preference is RedHat 7.3) using Xvnc on boot up and the windows VNC client can log in to it for the developer can use. This second PC does not even have to reside in the developers work area but it is easier. The developer needs to have full control of this PC including the root password. But this adds to the maintenance of the machines and you very quickly discover that patches come out often. Some developers do not like your chosen Linux distribution. My experience is that these developers know how to look after their machine and you don't need to maintain these PCs. The way I would set up the workstations would be that the cross compiler would be mounted form a sopped up workstation somewhere the tftp server would also sit on one server and each workstation would mount this in the same place on each workstation. User accounts would be set up network wide using NIS or LDAP but the home directory for each developer would reside on each workstation. Each developer would have his own network root partition for his own development and this needs to be kept as close as possible to what will be stored in flash (this is difficult but possible). Whoever gets the job of keeping the Linux server and / or workstations up to date will like using a Linux distribution as it is very easy to apply patches. It is not uncommon for me to have 4 or 5 RedHat update agents running at the same time from different PCs on my one desktop. This is how I did it but maybe there are better ways I am yet to work out. Hope this helps a little bit Regards, Rod Boyce -Original Message- From: John Fisher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 6:15 PM To: linuxppc-embedded at lists.linuxppc.org Subject: RE: cygwin and embedded linux > Actually, my personal opinion on that matter is that I'm not very fond > of using Windows for a Linux kernel development platform. Doing -- So what are the issues: How is cygwin significantly different from Linux that you would not want to use it? Are there useful tools that run under Linux but not under cygwin? The reason I ask is that my organization currently does its software development under windows using proprietary tools. We have to maintain our existing products using these tools. We are however contemplating new development using linux. If we have to dual boot our PCs or have an extra PC running Linux for each developer, that is going to bring its own set of nuisances and problems. Are there others in this situation and how have they chosen to solve it? ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
cygwin and embedded linux
Dr. Craig Hollabaugh wrote: > I'm curious ... > > How many out there actually are compiling PPC code natively on a PowerPC > Linux box for their embedded devices? Me. > If so, do you run the same development versions on your desktop? Almost :-) > How do you handle the FPU issues? For 4xx/8xx I'll use a cross compiler, all other PowerPCs have FPUs. For embedded Altivecs I have to use the host compiler. I do all of my development for all embedded processors on a PowerMac running YDL. -- Dan ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
cygwin and embedded linux
At 01:18 AM 8/23/2002 -0400, Dan Malek wrote: >I do all of my development for all embedded processors on a PowerMac running >YDL. > > > -- Dan why you lucky dog! ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
cygwin and embedded linux
Set up a separate Linux server (or servers), then use an X-Windows server package, running on each M$-Windows machine, to be able to run xterms, etc. locally/ You will be able to access all of the Linux tools in their native environment. Later, when you may have only a few people doing legacy M$-Windows support, you can reverse the process. Your developers will live on Linux boxes and access a (NT Terminal Server/2000 Enterprise Server/Whatever the #%$! they call the XP version) to run the M$-Windows tools in THEIR native environment, while living in your primary development environment. I've done both of these, at various locations, currently the latter, living on Solaris/SPARC and Linux/X86 developing for embedded Linux/PPC. I have, in addition, used cygwin, on M$-Windows 2000 Pro, and found that the worst performance issue is that shared drives are PAINFUL, but that cross-development (for non-Linux MIPS, in that case) is really doable, although I ended up resorting to the M$-Windows-native version of emacs. Regards, Dan John Fisher wrote: >>Actually, my personal opinion on that matter is that I'm not very fond >>of using Windows for a Linux kernel development platform. Doing -- >> > > So what are the issues: How is cygwin significantly different from Linux > that you would not want to use it? > Are there useful tools that run under Linux but not under cygwin? > > The reason I ask is that my organization currently does its software > development under windows using proprietary tools. We have to maintain our > existing products using these tools. We are however contemplating new > development using linux. If we have to dual boot our PCs or have an extra PC > running Linux for each developer, that is going to bring its own set of > nuisances and problems. > > Are there others in this situation and how have they chosen to solve it? > > > > > ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
cygwin and embedded linux
To summarize: Speed Windows version compatibility NFS issues all good reasons to not develop using cygwin. Anything else? Personally, I do all my embedded development on a Debian machine. I'm just want a specific answer to the inevitable customer question, "Why can't I just use cygwin for development?" Thanks, Craig ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
cygwin and embedded linux
At 09:36 AM 8/22/2002 +0200, Marius Groeger wrote: >2. The "emulation" will never be 100%. Maybe 99%. Maybe 99.99%. That last > fraction can be a major PITA, because it is not obvious. To compile a > kernel you need a lot of tools with a lot of explicit and implicit twists > to them. It is just a gut feeling that I wouldn't want to rely on this, > if I don't have to. The native way just seems the better way to do it to > me. Just because your running on Linux doesn't mean anything because your duplicating the environment for cross-compiling anyway. So what does it matter if cygwin runs the cross tools or if Linux runs them? I'm curious ... How many out there actually are compiling PPC code natively on a PowerPC Linux box for their embedded devices? If so, do you run the same development versions on your desktop? How do you handle the FPU issues? Craig ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
cygwin and embedded linux
Oops, should have written: When starting to do Linux/PPC cross-development about a year ago (my current workplace is an NT shop) I experimented with cygwin, for some of the same reasons as the original poster describes. & I found that cygwin was roughly 20x slower than Linux running on the same class of PC (!). I could pop the Red Hat CD in the drive and install the actual OS, & have it up & running in half an hour -- less time than it took to complete a single, moderately complex compile job on cygwin. I soon found that ^ cygwin wasn't saving me any time at all. -Original Message- From: Kerl, John Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 4:49 PM To: 'Dr. Craig Hollabaugh'; Marius Groeger; John Fisher Cc: linuxppc-embedded at lists.linuxppc.org Subject: RE: cygwin and embedded linux When starting to do Linux/PPC cross-development about a year ago (my current workplace is an NT shop) I experimented with cygwin, for some of the same reasons as the original poster describes. & I found that cygwin was roughly 20x slower than Linux running on the same class of PC (!). I could pop the Red Hat CD in the drive and install the actual OS, & have it up & running in half an hour -- less time than it took to complete a single, moderately complex job. I soon found that cygwin wasn't saving me any time at all. -Original Message- From: Dr. Craig Hollabaugh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 4:39 PM To: Marius Groeger; John Fisher Cc: linuxppc-embedded at lists.linuxppc.org Subject: RE: cygwin and embedded linux At 09:36 AM 8/22/2002 +0200, Marius Groeger wrote: >2. The "emulation" will never be 100%. Maybe 99%. Maybe 99.99%. That last > fraction can be a major PITA, because it is not obvious. To compile a > kernel you need a lot of tools with a lot of explicit and implicit twists > to them. It is just a gut feeling that I wouldn't want to rely on this, > if I don't have to. The native way just seems the better way to do it to > me. Just because your running on Linux doesn't mean anything because your duplicating the environment for cross-compiling anyway. So what does it matter if cygwin runs the cross tools or if Linux runs them? I'm curious ... How many out there actually are compiling PPC code natively on a PowerPC Linux box for their embedded devices? If so, do you run the same development versions on your desktop? How do you handle the FPU issues? Craig ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
cygwin and embedded linux
When starting to do Linux/PPC cross-development about a year ago (my current workplace is an NT shop) I experimented with cygwin, for some of the same reasons as the original poster describes. & I found that cygwin was roughly 20x slower than Linux running on the same class of PC (!). I could pop the Red Hat CD in the drive and install the actual OS, & have it up & running in half an hour -- less time than it took to complete a single, moderately complex job. I soon found that cygwin wasn't saving me any time at all. -Original Message- From: Dr. Craig Hollabaugh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 4:39 PM To: Marius Groeger; John Fisher Cc: linuxppc-embedded at lists.linuxppc.org Subject: RE: cygwin and embedded linux At 09:36 AM 8/22/2002 +0200, Marius Groeger wrote: >2. The "emulation" will never be 100%. Maybe 99%. Maybe 99.99%. That last > fraction can be a major PITA, because it is not obvious. To compile a > kernel you need a lot of tools with a lot of explicit and implicit twists > to them. It is just a gut feeling that I wouldn't want to rely on this, > if I don't have to. The native way just seems the better way to do it to > me. Just because your running on Linux doesn't mean anything because your duplicating the environment for cross-compiling anyway. So what does it matter if cygwin runs the cross tools or if Linux runs them? I'm curious ... How many out there actually are compiling PPC code natively on a PowerPC Linux box for their embedded devices? If so, do you run the same development versions on your desktop? How do you handle the FPU issues? Craig ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
cygwin and embedded linux
Why not just set up ONE Linux computer and have people login to it? Use SAMBA to map drives off the Linux box if you want to use your proprietary IDEs -or- use Cygwin Xfree86 (or a proprietary product, i.e. eXceed) to run an X server and run KDevelop (or whatever off the Linux box with display to your local windows PC) With Linux and Unix-based tools and technologies, the possible developmental infrastructure configurations are endless! -Jason Hihn I reserve the right to be wrong. -Original Message- From: John Fisher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 9:15 PM To: linuxppc-embedded at lists.linuxppc.org Subject: RE: cygwin and embedded linux > Actually, my personal opinion on that matter is that I'm not very fond > of using Windows for a Linux kernel development platform. Doing -- So what are the issues: How is cygwin significantly different from Linux that you would not want to use it? Are there useful tools that run under Linux but not under cygwin? The reason I ask is that my organization currently does its software development under windows using proprietary tools. We have to maintain our existing products using these tools. We are however contemplating new development using linux. If we have to dual boot our PCs or have an extra PC running Linux for each developer, that is going to bring its own set of nuisances and problems. Are there others in this situation and how have they chosen to solve it? ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
cygwin and embedded linux
> Are there others in this situation and how have they chosen to solve it? Vmware could be one way to solve it. Good if you want to develop and test device drivers. Or use separate Linux boxes and use a X server to connect to them. There are commercial X servers for Windows like X-Win32 and it should also be possible to use Xfree86 on Windows for free. Both work great. That way you can stay on Windows for a while, use the X-Server to access the Linux box (and other boxes that supports X), and then maybe later switch to a Linux-only solution. Another way to solve it would be to switch to Linux and use VNC to connect to your Windows boxes. I'm not sure how well this works out, though. / magnus > John Fisher wrote: > > > Actually, my personal opinion on that matter is that I'm not very fond > > of using Windows for a Linux kernel development platform. Doing -- > > So what are the issues: How is cygwin significantly different from Linux > that you would not want to use it? > Are there useful tools that run under Linux but not under cygwin? > > The reason I ask is that my organization currently does its software > development under windows using proprietary tools. We have to maintain our > existing products using these tools. We are however contemplating new > development using linux. If we have to dual boot our PCs or have an extra PC > running Linux for each developer, that is going to bring its own set of > nuisances and problems. > > Are there others in this situation and how have they chosen to solve it? > ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
cygwin and embedded linux
> Actually, my personal opinion on that matter is that I'm not very fond > of using Windows for a Linux kernel development platform. Doing -- So what are the issues: How is cygwin significantly different from Linux that you would not want to use it? Are there useful tools that run under Linux but not under cygwin? The reason I ask is that my organization currently does its software development under windows using proprietary tools. We have to maintain our existing products using these tools. We are however contemplating new development using linux. If we have to dual boot our PCs or have an extra PC running Linux for each developer, that is going to bring its own set of nuisances and problems. Are there others in this situation and how have they chosen to solve it? ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
cygwin and embedded linux
On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, John Fisher wrote: > > Actually, my personal opinion on that matter is that I'm not very fond > > of using Windows for a Linux kernel development platform. Doing -- > > So what are the issues: How is cygwin significantly different from Linux > that you would not want to use it? My advise against compiling a kernel and generating boot images (ie. integrating the parts of an embedded Linux project) is on two grounds: 1. You will only succeed in doing so by emulating a lot of aspects of a regular Linux build machine. That's why you need something like Cygwin. On that way you are loosing some of Windows's advantages (YMMV), most notably and of the GUI features. What you end up with is more or less like any Linux terminal, so you might as well do the job on a real Windows box that you log on to from your Windows machine, if you must. 2. The "emulation" will never be 100%. Maybe 99%. Maybe 99.99%. That last fraction can be a major PITA, because it is not obvious. To compile a kernel you need a lot of tools with a lot of explicit and implicit twists to them. It is just a gut feeling that I wouldn't want to rely on this, if I don't have to. The native way just seems the better way to do it to me. > Are there useful tools that run under Linux but not under cygwin? Probably you can get pretty many tools for Cygwin too. But it may not be as easy. But please don't get me wrong: my point isn't religious: there are situations where you simply have to use what you're given (at least if you want to keep your job :-), and Cygwin definitely is a valid alternative. I'd just not go through this trouble if I don't really have to. > The reason I ask is that my organization currently does its software > development under windows using proprietary tools. We have to maintain our > existing products using these tools. We are however contemplating new > development using linux. If we have to dual boot our PCs or have an extra PC > running Linux for each developer, that is going to bring its own set of > nuisances and problems. Well, if you're really jumping ship with the new projects, you should go the full way and install Linux workstations. You'll have to in the long run. You could try VMware for the maintainance business. We're using VMware here quite successfully. Regards Marius - Marius Groeger SYSGO Real-Time Solutions GmbH mgroeger at sysgo.de Software Engineering Embedded and Real-Time Softwarewww.sysgo.de Voice: +49-6136-9948-0 Am Pfaffenstein 14 www.osek.de FAX: +49-6136-9948-10 55270 Klein-Winternheim, Germany www.elinos.com ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
cygwin and embedded linux
John, in message <000501c24979$6348a190$37d34c93 at neca.nec.com.au> you wrote: > > So what are the issues: How is cygwin significantly different from Linux > that you would not want to use it? First, you may run into compatibility issues. It is a non-trivial task to create a set of tools that will run on more than one combination of versions of Cygwin and Windoze: a product that works for Cygwin under Windows 2000 may fail if attempted to run on Windows NT, let alone Windows 98. Different versions of Cygwin may even have different layout of the C header files. Second, many packages need for their build process a couple of UNIX tools which are not available on Cygwin. For example: localedef, mktemp, rpcgen and others. Finally, you will probably run into problems with NFS support on Windows hosts. I'm not sure that you can really create a filesystem on a Windows box which preserves all the information required for a LInux root filesystem, so that you can actually export if over NFS for your targets (think about issues like symbolic and hard links, owners, groups, sticky bit [for /tmp], setuid / setgid bits, device files, ...). > Are there useful tools that run under Linux but not under cygwin? Yes. > The reason I ask is that my organization currently does its software > development under windows using proprietary tools. We have to maintain our > existing products using these tools. We are however contemplating new > development using linux. If we have to dual boot our PCs or have an extra PC > running Linux for each developer, that is going to bring its own set of > nuisances and problems. There are several solutions. First, and recommended, you can install one of a couple of Linux servers. It is trivial to make these resources available to your developers on Windoze hosts. You don't have to install a new Linux PC for every developer. Remember that UNIX has a long tradition in using dumb clients (like VT100 terminals or X11 clients); a windows box fits nicely into this ;-) If you still think this is not an option, you don;t have to dual-boot to use both environments on the same machine. For example, Lineo uses (used?) vmware to provide a (hidden) Linux box running under Windows to provide a Linux development environment on Windows systems - you can do the same. > Are there others in this situation and how have they chosen to solve it? Of course there is also the more radical approach: install Linux on all your Windoze boxen, and save a lot of money on M$ licenses ;-) Wolfgang Denk -- Software Engineering: Embedded and Realtime Systems, Embedded Linux Phone: (+49)-8142-4596-87 Fax: (+49)-8142-4596-88 Email: wd at denx.de The price one pays for pursuing any profession, or calling, is an intimate knowledge of its ugly side. - James Baldwin ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
cygwin and embedded linux
> So what are the issues: How is cygwin significantly different from Linux > that you would not want to use it? > Are there useful tools that run under Linux but not under cygwin? > The reason I ask is that my organization currently does its software > development under windows using proprietary tools. We have to maintain our > existing products using these tools. We are however contemplating new > development using linux. If we have to dual boot our PCs or have an extra PC > running Linux for each developer, that is going to bring its own set of > nuisances and problems. I am in a very similar situation as you. I had a few problems doing things in cygwin, things not building correctly, no genksyms for the kernel modules, mount doesn't have all the options that the linux version does (for example loopback file systems, useful for creating a ramdisk image.), etc. So I feel it is less desirable than a linux environment. The solution that I am trying to implement in my current company is to do the cross compiling on actual linux servers, using telnet or ssh from the windows machines. Running samba on the linux servers will let the windows people use their current favorite programmer's editors. If you install cygwin on the windows machines, you can use their xwindows client Cygwin/XFree86 to run gui applications remotely, if desired (e.g. DDD or Insight debuggers). ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
cygwin and embedded linux
Is anyone seriously trying to do embedded Linux development for power PC using Cygwin as the host? I'm trying to get linux running on proprietary MPC850/860/8260 boards. I'll start with either the 850 or the 860 board as I'm more familiar with these processors than with the 8260. I have the Macraigor blackbird BDM interface for the MPC850/860. I have both an Agilent ethernet based probe and the Wind River Vision Probe II for the 8260. All boards will be running with plenty of flash and RAM: 16MB and 32MB respectively for both the 850 and 860 boards. They will be running with no disk drive, no monitor and a serial port on SCC3. I may have real time requirements, but this is yet to be determined. This is a learning exercise at this stage. John Fisher NEC Australia Pty Ltd ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
cygwin and embedded linux
On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, John Fisher wrote: > Is anyone seriously trying to do embedded Linux development for power PC > using Cygwin as the host? We will do it for Elinos 3.0. There aren't any release dates fixed, unfortunately. Actually, my personal opinion on that matter is that I'm not very fond of using Windows for a Linux kernel development platform. Doing -- ideally pure ANSI-C/C++ -- application development is a different story. Thus, I feel it is much more sane to split it right there, if you must: develop application code whereever you like, but compile your kernel and integrate your project on Linux. Just my $.02, Marius - Marius Groeger SYSGO Real-Time Solutions GmbH mgroeger at sysgo.de Software Engineering Embedded and Real-Time Softwarewww.sysgo.de Voice: +49-6136-9948-0 Am Pfaffenstein 14 www.osek.de FAX: +49-6136-9948-10 55270 Klein-Winternheim, Germany www.elinos.com ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
cygwin and embedded linux
> Is anyone seriously trying to do embedded Linux development for power PC > using Cygwin as the host? I've designed a build-system for a customer, and I tried (just to see how much that worked ok) to build under Cygwin. Everything worked out ok until the system cross compiled glibc-2.1.3. Building glibc generated a error message that meant something like you-have-bad-memory-on-your-system. I tried to find the source of the problem with rebuilding and running memtest86. But no success. But this was maybe a year ago. The same system works great on Linux boxes. That's my only experience. But I have a box from Lynuxworks somewhere here (someone gave it to me) and that box says that the build system is hosted on windows... / Magnus John Fisher wrote: > > Is anyone seriously trying to do embedded Linux development for power PC > using Cygwin as the host? > > I'm trying to get linux running on proprietary MPC850/860/8260 boards. I'll > start with either the 850 or the 860 board as I'm more familiar with these > processors than with the 8260. > > I have the Macraigor blackbird BDM interface for the MPC850/860. I have both > an Agilent ethernet based probe and the Wind River Vision Probe II for the > 8260. > > All boards will be running with plenty of flash and RAM: 16MB and 32MB > respectively for both the 850 and 860 boards. They will be running with no > disk drive, no monitor and a serial port on SCC3. > > I may have real time requirements, but this is yet to be determined. > > This is a learning exercise at this stage. > > John Fisher > NEC Australia Pty Ltd > ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
cygwin and embedded linux
viosoft has done it -Original Message- From: Magnus Damm [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 10:54 AM To: John.Fisher at nec.com.au Cc: linuxppc-embedded at lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: cygwin and embedded linux > Is anyone seriously trying to do embedded Linux development for power PC > using Cygwin as the host? I've designed a build-system for a customer, and I tried (just to see how much that worked ok) to build under Cygwin. Everything worked out ok until the system cross compiled glibc-2.1.3. Building glibc generated a error message that meant something like you-have-bad-memory-on-your-system. I tried to find the source of the problem with rebuilding and running memtest86. But no success. But this was maybe a year ago. The same system works great on Linux boxes. That's my only experience. But I have a box from Lynuxworks somewhere here (someone gave it to me) and that box says that the build system is hosted on windows... / Magnus John Fisher wrote: > > Is anyone seriously trying to do embedded Linux development for power PC > using Cygwin as the host? > > I'm trying to get linux running on proprietary MPC850/860/8260 boards. I'll > start with either the 850 or the 860 board as I'm more familiar with these > processors than with the 8260. > > I have the Macraigor blackbird BDM interface for the MPC850/860. I have both > an Agilent ethernet based probe and the Wind River Vision Probe II for the > 8260. > > All boards will be running with plenty of flash and RAM: 16MB and 32MB > respectively for both the 850 and 860 boards. They will be running with no > disk drive, no monitor and a serial port on SCC3. > > I may have real time requirements, but this is yet to be determined. > > This is a learning exercise at this stage. > > John Fisher > NEC Australia Pty Ltd > ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
