* Is our use of Cygwin to build & run OpenOCD a good one? @ 2019-05-19 19:44 Bob Cochran 2019-05-19 20:53 ` LRN ` (3 more replies) 0 siblings, 4 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Bob Cochran @ 2019-05-19 19:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin Hi, In case you're not familiar with it, OpenOCD is a hardware debugger that natively runs on Linux: http://openocd.org/ We use it for embedded hardware development in debugging our ARM and FPGA code via JTAG (e.g., set breakpoints, step through code, etc.).  For our use, it interfaces to our hardware via an FTDI USB-based JTAG controller. We recently wrote up our process on building OpenOCD using Cygwin on Windows 10 and shared it on the OpenOCD mail list.  And, I received the following feedback: "Cygwin? this is probably still functional, but now can be considered a (pre)historic solution." I personally have been using Cygwin for many years and have come to trust it for interfacing to Linux and macOS boxes from Windows. I think it's a great project, so when I wanted to build & run OpenOCD from scratch, I naturally went to Cygwin. I would appreciate any feedback on our use of Cygwin for building & running OpenOCD: https://mindchasers.com/dev/openocd-darsena-windows If fellow Cygwin users think it's a poor use case, then we'll pull the article. Thanks! Bob -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: Is our use of Cygwin to build & run OpenOCD a good one? 2019-05-19 19:44 Is our use of Cygwin to build & run OpenOCD a good one? Bob Cochran @ 2019-05-19 20:53 ` LRN 2019-05-19 21:21 ` Brian Inglis ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: LRN @ 2019-05-19 20:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin [-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2367 bytes --] On 19.05.2019 22:43, Bob Cochran wrote: > And, I received the > following feedback: > > "Cygwin? this is probably still functional, but now can be considered a > (pre)historic solution." > > I personally have been using Cygwin for many years and have come to > trust it for interfacing to Linux and macOS boxes from Windows. I think > it's a great project, so when I wanted to build & run OpenOCD from > scratch, I naturally went to Cygwin. > > I would appreciate any feedback on our use of Cygwin for building & > running OpenOCD: https://mindchasers.com/dev/openocd-darsena-windows > Cygwin allows you to compile programs written for *nix (specifically - for Linux) with [almost] no changes to the source code, producing Windows executables that run on Windows. That is achieved by using a compatibility runtime (the Cygwin DLL). This is useful if: 1) The code you're compiling is not Windows-compatible (i.e. can't be compiled with MinGW against MinGW SDK). 2) You're OK with a dependence on Cygwin runtime 3) You're OK with a possible performance hit that the runtime incurs. The amount of the performance you lose varies; might be negligible; might be significant - depends on what the code does. I grepped OpenOCD code, and it seems to me that it is Windows-compatible (README.Windows even says so explicitly). In that case you should probably cross-compile it to Windows (see autotools documentation on cross-compilation). You *can* cross-compile from Cygwin, but cross-compiling from *nix will be wa-a-ay faster. You can also use MSYS2 to compile it on Windows (without doing cross-compilation). Most likely the process won't be any faster than cross-compiling from Cygwin. Since OpenOCD uses autotools, these are your only options (if it were using CMake or Meson, you might have been able to build at least the binaries with just MinGW-w64 SDK and the buildsystem; but for autotools you need a fully-functional POSIX shell, meaning Cygwin, MSYS2 or the real *nix shell running on *nix). There's also the modern, "hip" way of using Windows POSIX subsystem (these days it's called "WSL", i think?) to run the necessary tools, but don't see any significant practical advantages to doing that (you still can't get zero-cost fork this way), whereas ethical ramifications might be significant. [-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: Is our use of Cygwin to build & run OpenOCD a good one? 2019-05-19 19:44 Is our use of Cygwin to build & run OpenOCD a good one? Bob Cochran 2019-05-19 20:53 ` LRN @ 2019-05-19 21:21 ` Brian Inglis 2019-05-20 14:16 ` Erik Soderquist 2019-05-20 17:54 ` Achim Gratz 3 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Brian Inglis @ 2019-05-19 21:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin On 2019-05-19 13:43, Bob Cochran wrote: > In case you're not familiar with it, OpenOCD is a hardware debugger that > natively runs on Linux: http://openocd.org/ > > We use it for embedded hardware development in debugging our ARM and FPGA code > via JTAG (e.g., set breakpoints, step through code, etc.).  For our use, it > interfaces to our hardware via an FTDI USB-based JTAG controller. > > We recently wrote up our process on building OpenOCD using Cygwin on Windows 10 > and shared it on the OpenOCD mail list.  And, I received the following feedback: > > "Cygwin? this is probably still functional, but now can be considered a > (pre)historic solution." Probably from someone who tried Cygwin a decade ago and never since, or possibly from someone who never tried it, or from MS. > I personally have been using Cygwin for many years and have come to trust it for > interfacing to Linux and macOS boxes from Windows. I think it's a great > project, so when I wanted to build & run OpenOCD from scratch, I naturally went > to Cygwin. Ditto. If all you have access to is a Windows desktop, it's your only POSIX compatible option. And as a distro Cygwin supports over 10k packages. For interop from Windows to other boxes, Cygwin is a much lighter and more integrated solution than a VM, and much more functional than WSL, as you can run Unix daemons working as if Windows services, X and dependent window managers and apps as on Unix, and develop and build them as well from their original source code, using autotools or anything you'd use on another system. > I would appreciate any feedback on our use of Cygwin for building & running > OpenOCD: https://mindchasers.com/dev/openocd-darsena-windows > > If fellow Cygwin users think it's a poor use case, then we'll pull the article. Great use case: don't let grumpy commentators drag you down. -- Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada This email may be disturbing to some readers as it contains too much technical detail. Reader discretion is advised. -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: Is our use of Cygwin to build & run OpenOCD a good one? 2019-05-19 19:44 Is our use of Cygwin to build & run OpenOCD a good one? Bob Cochran 2019-05-19 20:53 ` LRN 2019-05-19 21:21 ` Brian Inglis @ 2019-05-20 14:16 ` Erik Soderquist 2019-05-20 14:27 ` Jose Isaias Cabrera 2019-05-20 17:54 ` Achim Gratz 3 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: Erik Soderquist @ 2019-05-20 14:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 3:44 PM Bob Cochran wrote: <snip> > "Cygwin? this is probably still functional, but now can be considered a > (pre)historic solution." The words of the ignorant, in my opinion. Cygwin has done an excellent job of maintaining currency and usefulness. <snip> > I would appreciate any feedback on our use of Cygwin for building & > running OpenOCD: https://mindchasers.com/dev/openocd-darsena-windows I think the most important key question to ask is: does it work well for you and your use case? > If fellow Cygwin users think it's a poor use case, then we'll pull the > article. If it works well, I think it is a good use case. -- Erik -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: Is our use of Cygwin to build & run OpenOCD a good one? 2019-05-20 14:16 ` Erik Soderquist @ 2019-05-20 14:27 ` Jose Isaias Cabrera 2019-05-20 18:49 ` Bob Cochran 0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: Jose Isaias Cabrera @ 2019-05-20 14:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Erik Soderquist, cygwin Erik Soderquist, on Monday, May 20, 2019 10:16 AM, wrote... >On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 3:44 PM Bob Cochran wrote: ><snip> >> "Cygwin? this is probably still functional, but now can be considered a >> (pre)historic solution." > >The words of the ignorant, in my opinion. Cygwin has done an >excellent job of maintaining currency and usefulness. Indeed. I have been using cygwin since 1996-7. Can't remember the exact year, but it has been God-sent, and it has been in every Windows machine I have had control. Just my 0.02. Thanks. josé -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: Is our use of Cygwin to build & run OpenOCD a good one? 2019-05-20 14:27 ` Jose Isaias Cabrera @ 2019-05-20 18:49 ` Bob Cochran 2019-05-21 17:55 ` LRN 0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: Bob Cochran @ 2019-05-20 18:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin On 5/20/19 10:27 AM, Jose Isaias Cabrera wrote: > Erik Soderquist, on Monday, May 20, 2019 10:16 AM, wrote... >> On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 3:44 PM Bob Cochran wrote: >> <snip> >>> "Cygwin? this is probably still functional, but now can be considered a >>> (pre)historic solution." >> The words of the ignorant, in my opinion. Cygwin has done an >> excellent job of maintaining currency and usefulness. > Indeed. I have been using cygwin since 1996-7. Can't remember the exact year, but it has been God-sent, and it has been in every Windows machine I have had control. Just my 0.02. Thanks. Thank you to everyone who has replied to my question whether this was a good use case for Cygwin! It was great to read all of the replies and see that I'm in sync with this project & its users / developers. As others have basically stated, it's like a Windows 10 Swiss Army knife - pull it out of your pocket when needed and get the job done without a hassle. Bob > > josé > > -- > Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html > FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ > Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html > Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple > > -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: Is our use of Cygwin to build & run OpenOCD a good one? 2019-05-20 18:49 ` Bob Cochran @ 2019-05-21 17:55 ` LRN 2019-05-21 18:21 ` Jose Isaias Cabrera 2019-05-22 6:05 ` Bob Cochran 0 siblings, 2 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: LRN @ 2019-05-21 17:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin [-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2963 bytes --] On 20.05.2019 21:49, Bob Cochran wrote: > On 5/20/19 10:27 AM, Jose Isaias Cabrera wrote: >> Erik Soderquist, on Monday, May 20, 2019 10:16 AM, wrote... >>> On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 3:44 PM Bob Cochran wrote: >>> <snip> >>>> "Cygwin? this is probably still functional, but now can be considered a >>>> (pre)historic solution." >>> The words of the ignorant, in my opinion. Cygwin has done an >>> excellent job of maintaining currency and usefulness. >> Indeed. I have been using cygwin since 1996-7. Can't remember the exact year, but it has been God-sent, and it has been in every Windows machine I have had control. Just my 0.02. Thanks. > > > Thank you to everyone who has replied to my question whether this was a > good use case for Cygwin! It was great to read all of the replies and > see that I'm in sync with this project & its users / developers. > I've read the actual thread on OpenOCD ML, and i've looked at the links posted there. I probably should have subscribed to OpenOCD ML, but i'm too lazy to do so and will write here instead. Basically, the thread had three participants: *kristof mulier: wanted to get OpenOCD binaries for Windows, tried MSYS2, but didn't get satisfactory results; posted a link to a guide for building OpenOCD with MSYS2, written by some 3rd party *you: posted a link to a guild for building OpenOCD with Cygwin *Liviu Ionescu: pointed out that you should be using mingw-w64, said that Cygwin is prehistoric Liviu Ionescu seems to be a Microsoft fanboy, since he advocated for the use of WSL (i already said earlier what i think of WSL). However, he wasn't wrong when he said that you should use MinGW. If a piece of software can be built with MinGW, then you generally should do so, unless there are specific reasons to avoid that (compatibility, subtle porting bugs, etc). It seems to be the case for OpenOCD. kristof mulier seems to have weak developer-fu, and got a bit confused. The MSYS2 guide that he used pointed to a MSYS2 package git repo, and kristof assumed that the repo in question contained OpenOCD source code (which is supposedly why he was getting an old version of OpenOCD compiled all the time). That is not the case[0]. MSYS2 package repo contains small buildscripts for the appropriate packages. The reason he was getting an old version is that the version (git revision, in case of OpenOCD-git) is hardcoded into PKGBUILD file (which he didn't edit, uncritically following the guide; the author of the guide didn't concern himself with getting OpenOCD from lastest git master HEAD, and thus didn't mention that detail). Therefore i still sand on my advice: either cross-compile from Cygwin, or try MSYS2 (the irony here is that your Cygwin guide describes *almost exactly* how one can build OpenOCD from MSYS2). [0]: at least, i assume so; i don't really use MSYS2 repos or its package manager, therefore i could be mistaken [-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: Is our use of Cygwin to build & run OpenOCD a good one? 2019-05-21 17:55 ` LRN @ 2019-05-21 18:21 ` Jose Isaias Cabrera 2019-05-22 6:05 ` Bob Cochran 1 sibling, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Jose Isaias Cabrera @ 2019-05-21 18:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: LRN, cygwin LRN, on Tuesday, May 21, 2019 01:55 PM, wrote... > >Therefore i still sand on my advice: either cross-compile from Cygwin, or try >MSYS2 (the irony here is that your Cygwin guide describes *almost exactly* how >one can build OpenOCD from MSYS2). I have never heard of MSYS2. It looks interesting. Thanks. josé -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: Is our use of Cygwin to build & run OpenOCD a good one? 2019-05-21 17:55 ` LRN 2019-05-21 18:21 ` Jose Isaias Cabrera @ 2019-05-22 6:05 ` Bob Cochran 2019-05-22 21:35 ` Andrey Repin 1 sibling, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: Bob Cochran @ 2019-05-22 6:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin On 5/21/19 1:55 PM, LRN wrote: > On 20.05.2019 21:49, Bob Cochran wrote: >> On 5/20/19 10:27 AM, Jose Isaias Cabrera wrote: >>> Erik Soderquist, on Monday, May 20, 2019 10:16 AM, wrote... >>>> On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 3:44 PM Bob Cochran wrote: >>>> <snip> >>>>> "Cygwin? this is probably still functional, but now can be considered a >>>>> (pre)historic solution." >>>> The words of the ignorant, in my opinion. Cygwin has done an >>>> excellent job of maintaining currency and usefulness. >>> Indeed. I have been using cygwin since 1996-7. Can't remember the exact year, but it has been God-sent, and it has been in every Windows machine I have had control. Just my 0.02. Thanks. >> >> Thank you to everyone who has replied to my question whether this was a >> good use case for Cygwin! It was great to read all of the replies and >> see that I'm in sync with this project & its users / developers. >> > I've read the actual thread on OpenOCD ML, and i've looked at the links posted > there. I probably should have subscribed to OpenOCD ML, but i'm too lazy to do > so and will write here instead. Thank you LRN for the excellent write up(s).  I'm going to summarize this and add it to our web article as alternatives to our approach. Please also consider that Cygwin worked without a hassle and is on all of our PCs.  Time is tight and maybe I can be build a native Windows OpenOCD exe that works with our hardware, but maybe I can't without burning a lot of time. At this point, we're good to go with Cygwin. Also, I want students that we're working with to install Cygwin on their PCs.  I never bothered to learn complicated Power shell syntax & commands because I never needed to - just opened a Cygwin terminal instead. And I'm reluctant to install other translation projects on my PC like MSYS2 and MinGW because of bloat, support, and security concerns.  Try to keep it as simple as possible! But anyway, the main point of my email is to thank you for taking the time to write this up. Bob > > Basically, the thread had three participants: > > *kristof mulier: wanted to get OpenOCD binaries for Windows, tried MSYS2, but > didn't get satisfactory results; posted a link to a guide for building OpenOCD > with MSYS2, written by some 3rd party > *you: posted a link to a guild for building OpenOCD with Cygwin > *Liviu Ionescu: pointed out that you should be using mingw-w64, said that > Cygwin is prehistoric > > Liviu Ionescu seems to be a Microsoft fanboy, since he advocated for the use of > WSL (i already said earlier what i think of WSL). However, he wasn't wrong when > he said that you should use MinGW. If a piece of software can be built with > MinGW, then you generally should do so, unless there are specific reasons to > avoid that (compatibility, subtle porting bugs, etc). It seems to be the case > for OpenOCD. > > kristof mulier seems to have weak developer-fu, and got a bit confused. The > MSYS2 guide that he used pointed to a MSYS2 package git repo, and kristof > assumed that the repo in question contained OpenOCD source code (which is > supposedly why he was getting an old version of OpenOCD compiled all the time). > That is not the case[0]. MSYS2 package repo contains small buildscripts for the > appropriate packages. The reason he was getting an old version is that the > version (git revision, in case of OpenOCD-git) is hardcoded into PKGBUILD file > (which he didn't edit, uncritically following the guide; the author of the > guide didn't concern himself with getting OpenOCD from lastest git master HEAD, > and thus didn't mention that detail). > > Therefore i still sand on my advice: either cross-compile from Cygwin, or try > MSYS2 (the irony here is that your Cygwin guide describes *almost exactly* how > one can build OpenOCD from MSYS2). > > [0]: at least, i assume so; i don't really use MSYS2 repos or its package > manager, therefore i could be mistaken > -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: Is our use of Cygwin to build & run OpenOCD a good one? 2019-05-22 6:05 ` Bob Cochran @ 2019-05-22 21:35 ` Andrey Repin 2019-05-23 1:47 ` Brian Inglis ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Andrey Repin @ 2019-05-22 21:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bob Cochran, cygwin [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8, Size: 749 bytes --] Greetings, Bob Cochran! > And I'm reluctant to install other translation projects on my PC like > MSYS2 and MinGW because of bloat, support, and security concerns.  Try > to keep it as simple as possible! In case of Cygwin and MinGW, all you would be installing is cross-compilers' toolchain. Then you run make from Cygwin, specifying correct target, and get a native Win32 executabe at the end. -- With best regards, Andrey Repin Thursday, May 23, 2019 0:26:40 Sorry for my terrible english...\x03BKCB\x1cØ\x19[H\x1c\^[Ü\x1cÎ\b\b\b\b\b\b\x1a\x1d\x1d\x1c\x0eËØÞYÝÚ[ÛÛKÜ\x1cØ\x19[\Ë\x1d^[[\x03BTN\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\x1a\x1d\x1d\x1c\x0eËØÞYÝÚ[ÛÛKÙ\KÃB^[ØÝ[Y[\x18]\x1a[Û\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\x1a\x1d\x1d\x1c\x0eËØÞYÝÚ[ÛÛKÙ^[ØÜË\x1d^[[\x03B[ÝXØÜXH\x1a[Î\b\b\b\b\b\x1a\x1d\x1d\x1c\x0eËØÞYÝÚ[ÛÛKÛ[\vÈÝ[ÝXØÜXK\Ú[\^[\x19CBB ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: Is our use of Cygwin to build & run OpenOCD a good one? 2019-05-22 21:35 ` Andrey Repin @ 2019-05-23 1:47 ` Brian Inglis 2019-05-23 1:52 ` Brian Inglis 2019-05-23 1:55 ` Brian Inglis 2 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Brian Inglis @ 2019-05-23 1:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin On 2019-05-22 15:28, Andrey Repin wrote: > Bob Cochran wrote:>> And I'm reluctant to install other translation projects on my PC like>> MSYS2 and MinGW because of bloat, support, and security concerns. Try >> to keep it as simple as possible!> In case of Cygwin and MinGW, all you would be installing is cross-compilers'> toolchain.> Then you run make from Cygwin, specifying correct target, and get a native> Win32 executabe at the end. First you have to check that you have all the library build dependencies you need available in mingw64-x86_64-... packages, and install them (they install into /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/{lib,include} directories), and the related mingw64-x86_64-binutils, which go in the same tree, then configure the build to use those cross-tools, similar to how you would do an ARM cross-build on x86 Linux. -- Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada This email may be disturbing to some readers as it contains too much technical detail. Reader discretion is advised. -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: Is our use of Cygwin to build & run OpenOCD a good one? 2019-05-22 21:35 ` Andrey Repin 2019-05-23 1:47 ` Brian Inglis @ 2019-05-23 1:52 ` Brian Inglis 2019-05-23 1:55 ` Brian Inglis 2 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Brian Inglis @ 2019-05-23 1:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin On 2019-05-22 15:28, Andrey Repin wrote: > Bob Cochran wrote: >> And I'm reluctant to install other translation projects on my PC like MSYS2 >> and MinGW because of bloat, support, and security concerns. Try to keep it >> as simple as possible!> In case of Cygwin and MinGW, all you would be installing is cross-compilers' > toolchain. Then you run make from Cygwin, specifying correct target, and get > a native Win32 executable at the end. First you have to check that you have all the library build dependencies you need available in mingw64-x86_64-... packages, and install them (they install into /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/{lib,include} directories), and the related mingw64-x86_64-binutils, which go in the same tree, then configure the build to use those cross-tools, similar to how you would do an ARM cross-build on x86 Linux. [tbird munged previous attempt to post - retrying...] -- Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada This email may be disturbing to some readers as it contains too much technical detail. Reader discretion is advised. -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: Is our use of Cygwin to build & run OpenOCD a good one? 2019-05-22 21:35 ` Andrey Repin 2019-05-23 1:47 ` Brian Inglis 2019-05-23 1:52 ` Brian Inglis @ 2019-05-23 1:55 ` Brian Inglis 2 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Brian Inglis @ 2019-05-23 1:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin On 2019-05-22 15:28, Andrey Repin wrote: > Bob Cochran wrote: >> And I'm reluctant to install other translation projects on my PC like >> MSYS2 and MinGW because of bloat, support, and security concerns. Try >> to keep it as simple as possible! > In case of Cygwin and MinGW, all you would be installing is cross-compilers' > toolchain. > Then you run make from Cygwin, specifying correct target, and get a native > Win32 executable at the end. First you have to check that you have all the library build dependencies you need available in mingw64-x86_64-... packages, and install them (they install into /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/{lib,include} directories), and the related mingw64-x86_64-binutils, which go in the same tree, then configure the build to use those cross-tools, similar to how you would do an ARM cross-build on x86 Linux. [tbird munged previous attempts to post - last try!] -- Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada This email may be disturbing to some readers as it contains too much technical detail. Reader discretion is advised. -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: Is our use of Cygwin to build & run OpenOCD a good one? 2019-05-19 19:44 Is our use of Cygwin to build & run OpenOCD a good one? Bob Cochran ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2019-05-20 14:16 ` Erik Soderquist @ 2019-05-20 17:54 ` Achim Gratz 3 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Achim Gratz @ 2019-05-20 17:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin Bob Cochran writes: > We recently wrote up our process on building OpenOCD using Cygwin on > Windows 10 and shared it on the OpenOCD mail list. And, I received > the following feedback: > > "Cygwin? this is probably still functional, but now can be considered > a (pre)historic solution." More likely a fossilized memory of a very old Cygwin by that commenter. > I personally have been using Cygwin for many years and have come to > trust it for interfacing to Linux and macOS boxes from Windows. I > think it's a great project, so when I wanted to build & run OpenOCD > from scratch, I naturally went to Cygwin. > > I would appreciate any feedback on our use of Cygwin for building & > running OpenOCD: https://mindchasers.com/dev/openocd-darsena-windows > > If fellow Cygwin users think it's a poor use case, then we'll pull the > article. It works, you don't have to jump through burning hoops to get there and it helps you out for when you have to use a Windows box. So, all around a good use-case, really. Regards, Achim. -- +<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+ SD adaptation for Waldorf Blofeld V1.15B11: http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#WaldorfSDada -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-05-23 1:55 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 14+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2019-05-19 19:44 Is our use of Cygwin to build & run OpenOCD a good one? Bob Cochran 2019-05-19 20:53 ` LRN 2019-05-19 21:21 ` Brian Inglis 2019-05-20 14:16 ` Erik Soderquist 2019-05-20 14:27 ` Jose Isaias Cabrera 2019-05-20 18:49 ` Bob Cochran 2019-05-21 17:55 ` LRN 2019-05-21 18:21 ` Jose Isaias Cabrera 2019-05-22 6:05 ` Bob Cochran 2019-05-22 21:35 ` Andrey Repin 2019-05-23 1:47 ` Brian Inglis 2019-05-23 1:52 ` Brian Inglis 2019-05-23 1:55 ` Brian Inglis 2019-05-20 17:54 ` Achim Gratz
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).