Am Fri, 20 Feb 2015 08:01:58 +0100
schrieb Oleg Hahm oliver.h...@inria.fr:
Was this a vote for a function pointer based HAL or just a
Torvalds-like reflex? If the former is the case, then I'm apparently
the only one - counting the silent people on this topic as agreeing
or not caring -
In case it helps, http://watr.li/samr21-dev-setup-ubuntu.html explains
how I set up my dev environment for the SAMR :)
Cheers,
Lucas
On 20/02/15 12:32, Ralph Droms (rdroms) wrote:
On Feb 20, 2015, at 1:07 AM 2/20/15, Ludwig Ortmann
ludwig.ortm...@fu-berlin.de wrote:
Hi,
I'm glad you found
Hey Kaspar!
Using a weird compiler that cannot output the required object files
because it is closed source and proprietary is purely political. That
compiler could be changed trivially *if it would be open source* or the
vendor was inclined to do so. This doesn't count as technical reason.
Hi,
On 02/20/15 13:07, Emmanuel Baccelli wrote:
Saying otherwise makes clear that the persons are not aware of the
troubles embedded linux companies go through when developing
proprietary devices using (L)GPLed linux + libraries.
What do you mean by proprietary device?
Routers,
Hi Kaspar,
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Kaspar Schleiser kas...@schleiser.de
wrote:
Hey Matthias,
On 02/19/15 23:47, Matthias Waehlisch wrote:
As you pointed out in your email, there are scenarios where the
approach will not help due to technical reasons (and using a weird
Hi guys,
sorry to interrupt here: You are discussing the question whether Linux
is available for more hardware than RIOT ???
Even though this discussion may be a nice amusing chat for tea time
(imagining a 'native port' of Linux running as a RIOT Thread, RIOT on a
CRAY Supercomputer, RIOT
Hi,
On 02/20/15 13:50, Thomas C. Schmidt wrote:
sorry to interrupt here: You are discussing the question whether Linux
is available for more hardware than RIOT ???
No. We're discussing if developing proprietary products using RIOT is
comparable to developing proprietary products using embedded
Hi,
On 02/20/15 12:41, Oleg Hahm wrote:
Using a weird compiler that cannot output the required object files
because it is closed source and proprietary is purely political. That
compiler could be changed trivially *if it would be open source* or the
vendor was inclined to do so. This doesn't
Hi,
On 02/20/15 08:01, Oleg Hahm wrote:
A bit polemic: can't we use Java then and rely on a highly optimized (micro)
JVM?
;)
Maybe the question here is if we should concentrate on gcc and clang and
keep weird, esoteric, proprietary compilers that someone might use someday
in an
Hi Matthias,
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:47 PM, Matthias Waehlisch
m.waehli...@fu-berlin.de wrote:
Hi Kaspar,
sorry for the silence!
As you pointed out in your email, there are scenarios where the
approach will not help due to technical reasons (and using a weird
compiler might have
10 matches
Mail list logo
