[ECOS] eCos on Windows without Cygwin

[ECOS] eCos on Windows without Cygwin

[Øyvind Harboe]

If you don't agree that the dependence on Cygwin is hampering eCos,
then don't read further.

Thus warned.....

Problems w/Cygwin:

- Whether or not Cygwin will work at all for eCos is a matter of
chance depending on the mix of Cygwin packages on any given day. E.g.
today they seem to be battling with breakages in heap allocation on
XP due to trying to accommodate Vista somehow. Who knows what they'll
be working on tomorrow. Cygwin ecosconfig binary available for
download on ecos.sourceware.org was broken for years(?) w/latest
Cygwin.   http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2006-01/msg00799.html
- There is no way to create a single package no questions installer
w/Cygwin. Lots of companies ignore Cygwin license conditions and
bundle cygwin1.dll which creates lots of impossible to debug problems
w/side-by-side installs. A pox on them!
- Installing or upgrading Cygwin is *painful*. Download times,
unpacking times, lots of questions, how to figure out which packages
to install, etc., etc.
- Cygwin has no "release" concept a la Linux distributions. I don't
think there is a single change (except bugfixes) that has interested
me in Cygwin the last 5 years w.r.t. eCos development. eCos really has
very modest needs. I believe the reason this is so, is because there
is no interest w/the Cygwin package maintainers. The only option I
know of is the Cygwin Time Machine. For the record: I don't believe
the Cygwin guys are doing anything wrong. Doing releases would be the
solution, but to do that the resources would have to come from
somewhere. Given their resource limitations, I believe they are
spending their resources wisely.

As far as I know, MinGW binaries of GCC toolchains + eCos tools is the
most tantalizing prospect.

Since a eCos needs are so simple & unchanging, I believe a MinGW based
package could live relatively unchanged for years.

Does anyone know of any organized efforts to address these problems?


-- 
Øyvind Harboe
http://www.zylin.com

--
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss

RE: [ECOS] eCos on Windows without Cygwin

[Mikael Helbo Kjær]

Øyvind Harboe wrote

> As far as I know, MinGW binaries of GCC toolchains + eCos tools is the
> most tantalizing prospect.
> 
> Since a eCos needs are so simple & unchanging, I believe a MinGW based
> package could live relatively unchanged for years.
> 
> Does anyone know of any organized efforts to address these problems?
> 

I haven't seen anything working off MinGW or MSYS. It would be a useful
thing to have around. The general feeling I have from developers using
cygwin or MinGW toolchains is however a general feeling of slowness.

Instead I have heard of developers running their eCos development
environment in a virtual machine and having different vm-images for
different situations or even development targets. Unfortunately there is no
standard for VM-images either so any VM distribution would currently be tied
to a specific product. From my own experience a VMed environment is in fact
faster than a cygwin based one. I have no idea about MinGW though.

Best regards,
Mikael H. Kjaer
IO-Connect
http://www.io-connect.com


--
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss

Re: [ECOS] eCos on Windows without Cygwin

[Andrew Lunn]

> As far as I know, MinGW binaries of GCC toolchains + eCos tools is the
> most tantalizing prospect.

I've little interesting in using eCos on M$ platforms, so i don't
follow the discussion in too much depth, so take all my comments with
a pinch of salt.

As far as i understand, the main problem is configtool and to a lesser
extent ecosconfig. The toolchains themselves seem to work O.K. At
least i don't remember seeing people posting problems with
arm-elf-gcc, etc, it is mostly missing directory problems with
configtool.

As far as i'm aware, most, if not all maintainers use Linux by
preference. So there is little interest in cygwin, unless it is
commercially motivated, i.e. a customer wants a support contract for
hosting eCos on a M$ box.
 
> Since a eCos needs are so simple & unchanging, I believe a MinGW based
> package could live relatively unchanged for years.

If you only consider ecosconfig, i suspect this is true. If you want
to also include the GUI configtool, then the needs are much bigger.

My understanding is that MinGW is using the Win32 API. ecosconfig
using the POSIX API is to some extent maintained since that is what we
use in Linux. I occasionally compile it to make sure it does still
compile... There was an MSVC port at one time, but this has not been
maintained for a long time. So i don't know how much effort there will
be in getting ecosconfig to build and run using the Win32 API.

> Does anyone know of any organized efforts to address these problems?

There is some disorganized efforts to address these problems. If you
look back in the archives you will find patches which help. These are
mostly for the GUI configtool, allowing it to compile with a modern
version of xWidgets, automake support, a first stab at allowing
multiple repositories etc. However if you go the MingW direction with
just ecosconfig, i suspect there will be even less effort spent on
maintaining configtool.

Having said this, i don't think the major problems are technical. I
think it is more motivational. What is really needed is somebody who
takes responsibility for the M$ version of the tools, spends the time
to organize effort to get them working, takes care of all the patches,
regularly produces binaries, pushes to make a new release of the tools
for download on ecos.sourceware.org etc...

    Andrew

-- 
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss

Re: [ECOS] eCos on Windows without Cygwin

[Øyvind Harboe]

On 3/1/07, Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> wrote:
> > As far as I know, MinGW binaries of GCC toolchains + eCos tools is the
> > most tantalizing prospect.
>
> I've little interesting in using eCos on M$ platforms, so i don't
> follow the discussion in too much depth, so take all my comments with
> a pinch of salt.

Thanks for the feedback!

I wish Linux was the standard development platform(I certainly would
have preferred it), but alas e.g. w/FPGA development thrown in, one
can easily be locked into M$.




-- 
Øyvind Harboe
http://www.zylin.com

--
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss

Re: [ECOS] eCos on Windows without Cygwin

[Tom Malcolmson]

I am using eCos with the CodeSorcery tools on Windows.

The biggest problem I had was the cygwin paths (eg. in the makefiles).  
It is my understanding however, that CodeSorcery were planning on making 
future versions of their tools work with either windows or cygwin paths 
- this would make things a lot easier.

I do have cygwin installed on my computer, and I guess that is why 
ConfigTool is working.  I'm a little confused about this because I 
thought I had read that ConfigTool used wxWidgets (which would be 
ideal).  Does it use wxWidgets for the GUI and cygwin for the rest?

Tom.

Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> If you don't agree that the dependence on Cygwin is hampering eCos,
> then don't read further.
>
> Thus warned.....
>
> Problems w/Cygwin:
>
> - Whether or not Cygwin will work at all for eCos is a matter of
> chance depending on the mix of Cygwin packages on any given day. E.g.
> today they seem to be battling with breakages in heap allocation on
> XP due to trying to accommodate Vista somehow. Who knows what they'll
> be working on tomorrow. Cygwin ecosconfig binary available for
> download on ecos.sourceware.org was broken for years(?) w/latest
> Cygwin.   http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2006-01/msg00799.html
> - There is no way to create a single package no questions installer
> w/Cygwin. Lots of companies ignore Cygwin license conditions and
> bundle cygwin1.dll which creates lots of impossible to debug problems
> w/side-by-side installs. A pox on them!
> - Installing or upgrading Cygwin is *painful*. Download times,
> unpacking times, lots of questions, how to figure out which packages
> to install, etc., etc.
> - Cygwin has no "release" concept a la Linux distributions. I don't
> think there is a single change (except bugfixes) that has interested
> me in Cygwin the last 5 years w.r.t. eCos development. eCos really has
> very modest needs. I believe the reason this is so, is because there
> is no interest w/the Cygwin package maintainers. The only option I
> know of is the Cygwin Time Machine. For the record: I don't believe
> the Cygwin guys are doing anything wrong. Doing releases would be the
> solution, but to do that the resources would have to come from
> somewhere. Given their resource limitations, I believe they are
> spending their resources wisely.
>
> As far as I know, MinGW binaries of GCC toolchains + eCos tools is the
> most tantalizing prospect.
>
> Since a eCos needs are so simple & unchanging, I believe a MinGW based
> package could live relatively unchanged for years.
>
> Does anyone know of any organized efforts to address these problems?
>
>

-- 
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss

RE: [ECOS] eCos on Windows without Cygwin

[Kevin Wilson]

Sorry, this might appear to be a little harsh but posts that lay blame in the incorrect camp drive me nuts! 

>>Cygwin is hampering eCos

Not really. What other royalty free RTOS is available for zero cost that you can develop on both Linux and Windows? Your *real* problem isn't with eCos or cygwin, it is with the other MS only tools you are forced to use that prevent you from using eCos as it was intended. You should be asking the makers of those other tools to go at least as far as eCos and work with the Wine emulator.

>>w/FPGA development thrown in, one can easily be locked into M$.

This is where all of you hardware gurus can bark at the companies and demand native Linux tools or at least those compatible with Wine but *you* have to speak up! Ask the companies that you are paying thousands per seat to meet your needs not the people who charge you nothing and are already bending over backwards. 

I don't recall names but I thought I had seen some blurbs about fpga designers coming out for Linux on Linux Electrons' news site. Search the archives and you should find the articles.

-----Original Message-----
From: ecos-discuss-owner@ecos.sourceware.org
[mailto:ecos-discuss-owner@ecos.sourceware.org]On Behalf Of Øyvind
Harboe
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 08:25
To: ?yvind Harboe; eCos Discussion
Subject: Re: [ECOS] eCos on Windows without Cygwin


On 3/1/07, Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> wrote:
> > As far as I know, MinGW binaries of GCC toolchains + eCos tools is the
> > most tantalizing prospect.
>
> I've little interesting in using eCos on M$ platforms, so i don't
> follow the discussion in too much depth, so take all my comments with
> a pinch of salt.

Thanks for the feedback!

I wish Linux was the standard development platform(I certainly would
have preferred it), but alas e.g. w/FPGA development thrown in, one
can easily be locked into M$.




-- 
Øyvind Harboe
http://www.zylin.com

-- 
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss


--
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss

[ECOS] Re: eCos on Windows without Cygwin

[Grant Edwards]

On 2007-03-01, Øyvind Harboe <oyvind.harboe@zylin.com> wrote:

> If you don't agree that the dependence on Cygwin is hampering eCos,
> then don't read further.

Windows+Cygwin may indeed suck (IMO Windows+<anything> sucks).
Just do the right thing and install Linux. ;)

Windows+Cygwin is a royal pain, but it's probably not going
away.  The tools Altera supplies for it's new 32-bit CPU
(NIOS2) are purely Eclipse+GCC based. On Windows, they ship
enough of Cygwin along with it to create something that almost
works.

Rathing than stating that "the dependence on Cygwin is hapering
eCos", I prefer to say that "the availability of eCos tools for
Cygwin is widening its audience.

> Problems w/Cygwin:

[lots of problems w/ Cygwin]

Yup, Cygwin sucks compared to a real Unix system.  So use a
real Unix system.

> As far as I know, MinGW binaries of GCC toolchains + eCos tools is the
> most tantalizing prospect.

Except the eCos tools require a lot of support stuff (TCL,
bash shell, etc.).  I don't see how MinGW binaries of GCC
toolchains are going to allow you to run fairly complex TCL and
bash programs.

> Since a eCos needs are so simple & unchanging,

eCos needs aren't really all that simple.

> I believe a MinGW based package could live relatively
> unchanged for years.
>
> Does anyone know of any organized efforts to address these
> problems?

I don't really see how it could work.

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  My ELBOW is a remote
                                  at               FRENCH OUTPOST!!
                               visi.com            


-- 
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss

[ECOS] Re: eCos on Windows without Cygwin

[Grant Edwards]

On 2007-03-01, Øyvind Harboe <oyvind.harboe@zylin.com> wrote:
> On 3/1/07, Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> wrote:
>> > As far as I know, MinGW binaries of GCC toolchains + eCos tools is the
>> > most tantalizing prospect.
>>
>> I've little interesting in using eCos on M$ platforms, so i don't
>> follow the discussion in too much depth, so take all my comments with
>> a pinch of salt.
>
> Thanks for the feedback!
>
> I wish Linux was the standard development platform(I certainly would
> have preferred it), but alas e.g. w/FPGA development thrown in, one
> can easily be locked into M$.

So tell the FGPA vendor to pull their head out of their ass and
provide Linux tools.  Windows is for games and spreading malware.

Or use Windows for FPGA devel and Linux for SW devel (that's
how it works for all of the eCos projects I've worked on).

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  I request a weekend
                                  at               in Havana with Phil
                               visi.com            Silvers!


-- 
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss

Re: [ECOS] Re: eCos on Windows without Cygwin

[Donald Walton]

With the available of the VMWare server that runs on Winodws and Linux,
it makes sense to create a virtual Linux machine on Windows and run the
eCos development tools from there.

However, my personal preference is to work on a Linux machine and use
the virtual machines as my test bed.

Have a great day,
Don Walton

On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 18:36 +0000, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2007-03-01, Øyvind Harboe <oyvind.harboe@zylin.com> wrote:
> > On 3/1/07, Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> wrote:
> >> > As far as I know, MinGW binaries of GCC toolchains + eCos tools is the
> >> > most tantalizing prospect.
> >>
> >> I've little interesting in using eCos on M$ platforms, so i don't
> >> follow the discussion in too much depth, so take all my comments with
> >> a pinch of salt.
> >
> > Thanks for the feedback!
> >
> > I wish Linux was the standard development platform(I certainly would
> > have preferred it), but alas e.g. w/FPGA development thrown in, one
> > can easily be locked into M$.
> 
> So tell the FGPA vendor to pull their head out of their ass and
> provide Linux tools.  Windows is for games and spreading malware.
> 
> Or use Windows for FPGA devel and Linux for SW devel (that's
> how it works for all of the eCos projects I've worked on).
> 
> -- 
> Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  I request a weekend
>                                   at               in Havana with Phil
>                                visi.com            Silvers!
> 
> 

--
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss

Re: [ECOS] eCos on Windows without Cygwin

[Chuck McManis]

I think I agree with some of the others that Cygwin, while a poor example 
of a development environment for the Windows environment, its not 
"required" per say. There are a number of virtualization technologies that 
would let you run Linux side by side, and since in most shops you can't 
throw a databook without hitting a turned of PC under some IT 
administrators desk its pretty easy to through Debian or SuSE or your 
favorite distro on it and use Samba to export the resulting images back to 
your windows box.

So no, I don't agree with your premise that the sucky windows environment 
is hurting eCOS. It would be interesting to have someone adapt eCos to an 
Eclipse environment, especially configtool, that would rock.


--Chuck


-- 
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss

[ECOS] creating flash partitions in uBoot

[jatinder]

Hi guys,
How to create flash partitions using uBoot?

Thanks in advance.
Jatinder

-- 
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss

Re: [ECOS] eCos on Windows without Cygwin

[Ilija Koco]

You could use Cygwin X <http://x.cygwin.com/> as an X terminal to your
Linux machine and get eCos and FPGA together at your desktop.
I used to use Cygwin X for a long time, because I had some dev tools
that ran only on Windows. I haven't tried it with eCos configtool, but
all apps I have tried (Insight, Kdbg, Firefox, etc.) ran without problems.

Of course, still best hit is to convince FPGA vendors to start porting
their tools to Linux.

BR.
Ilija

Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> On 3/1/07, Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> wrote:
>> > As far as I know, MinGW binaries of GCC toolchains + eCos tools is the
>> > most tantalizing prospect.
>>
>> I've little interesting in using eCos on M$ platforms, so i don't
>> follow the discussion in too much depth, so take all my comments with
>> a pinch of salt.
>
> Thanks for the feedback!
>
> I wish Linux was the standard development platform(I certainly would
> have preferred it), but alas e.g. w/FPGA development thrown in, one
> can easily be locked into M$.
>
>
>
>


-- 
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss

Re: [ECOS] eCos on Windows without Cygwin

[Øyvind Harboe]

On 3/2/07, Ilija Koco <ilijak@siva.com.mk> wrote:
> You could use Cygwin X <http://x.cygwin.com/> as an X terminal to your
> Linux machine and get eCos and FPGA together at your desktop.
> I used to use Cygwin X for a long time, because I had some dev tools
> that ran only on Windows. I haven't tried it with eCos configtool, but
> all apps I have tried (Insight, Kdbg, Firefox, etc.) ran without problems.

The problem with Cygwin is that it is a lot of hassle. Having a
virtual linux box is also a lot of hassle... If coLinux was sharpned
quite a few notches(in terms of beating the crap out of Cygwin w.r.t.
installation), it might be a viable option.

> Of course, still best hit is to convince FPGA vendors to start porting
> their tools to Linux.

A rather quixotic undertaking! :-)



-- 
Øyvind Harboe
http://www.zylin.com

--
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss

Re: [ECOS] creating flash partitions in uBoot

[Gary Thomas]

jatinder wrote:
> Hi guys,
> How to create flash partitions using uBoot?

Perhaps you should ask the U-Boot folks.  This list is about
RedBoot and eCos.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Thomas                 |  Consulting for the
MLB Associates              |    Embedded world
------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss

Re: [ECOS] eCos on Windows without Cygwin

[Ilija Koco]

Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> On 3/2/07, Ilija Koco <ilijak@siva.com.mk> wrote:
>> You could use Cygwin X <http://x.cygwin.com/> as an X terminal to your
>> Linux machine and get eCos and FPGA together at your desktop.
>> I used to use Cygwin X for a long time, because I had some dev tools
>> that ran only on Windows. I haven't tried it with eCos configtool, but
>> all apps I have tried (Insight, Kdbg, Firefox, etc.) ran without
>> problems.
>
> The problem with Cygwin is that it is a lot of hassle.
From my experience Cygwin X is not a hassle, Cygwin might be hassle for
eCos, I haven't tried, I wouldn't judge, but Cyfwin X works pretty well
as an X server (terminal), It's part of Cygwin after all, you can
install it with the same Cygwin setup tool.
> Having a
> virtual linux box is also a lot of hassle... 
You don't need virtual Linux since you can use a real one (and probably
multiple users can share single machine if it has enough resources). It
can be on other machine, anywhere on net. All you need is a decent
TCP/IP connection - I have used it on 10MB/s... once upon a time ;-)
> If coLinux was sharpned
> quite a few notches(in terms of beating the crap out of Cygwin w.r.t.
> installation), it might be a viable option.
>
>> Of course, still best hit is to convince FPGA vendors to start porting
>> their tools to Linux.
>
> A rather quixotic undertaking! :-)
Yes, probably in large companies the managers and not engineers make
decisions, but maybe, if there's demand, someone will see competitive
advantage in porting tools to Linux.


-- 
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss

[ECOS] Re: eCos on Windows without Cygwin

[Grant Edwards]

On 2007-03-02, Øyvind Harboe <oyvind.harboe@zylin.com> wrote:
> On 3/2/07, Ilija Koco <ilijak@siva.com.mk> wrote:
>> You could use Cygwin X <http://x.cygwin.com/> as an X terminal to your
>> Linux machine and get eCos and FPGA together at your desktop.
>> I used to use Cygwin X for a long time, because I had some dev tools
>> that ran only on Windows. I haven't tried it with eCos configtool, but
>> all apps I have tried (Insight, Kdbg, Firefox, etc.) ran without problems.
>
> The problem with Cygwin is that it is a lot of hassle. Having
> a virtual linux box is also a lot of hassle... If coLinux was
> sharpned quite a few notches(in terms of beating the crap out
> of Cygwin w.r.t. installation), it might be a viable option.
>
>> Of course, still best hit is to convince FPGA vendors to start
>> porting their tools to Linux.
>
> A rather quixotic undertaking! :-)

Just buy from the ones that do support Linux (e.g. Altera) and
tell your old vendor why you're leaving.  They'll get the
message.

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  I think I'll do BOTH
                                  at               if I can get RESIDUALS!!
                               visi.com            


-- 
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss

Re: [ECOS] eCos on Windows without Cygwin

[Alexander Neundorf]

On Friday 02 March 2007 17:51, Ilija Koco wrote:
...
> Yes, probably in large companies the managers and not engineers make
> decisions, but maybe, if there's demand, someone will see competitive
> advantage in porting tools to Linux.

Sometimes even the actual developers working with eCos prefer Windows. So IMO 
Oyvind is not completely wrong here. Making it easier to develop for eCos 
under Windows (i.e. without cygwin) wouldn't be bad.

Bye
Alex
-- 
Work: alexander.neundorf AT jenoptik.com - http://www.jenoptik-los.de
Home: neundorf AT kde.org                - http://www.kde.org
      alex AT neundorf.net               - http://www.neundorf.net

-- 
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss

[ECOS] Re: eCos on Windows without Cygwin

[Grant Edwards]

On 2007-03-02, Alexander Neundorf <neundorf@kde.org> wrote:
> On Friday 02 March 2007 17:51, Ilija Koco wrote:
> ...
>> Yes, probably in large companies the managers and not engineers make
>> decisions, but maybe, if there's demand, someone will see competitive
>> advantage in porting tools to Linux.
>
> Sometimes even the actual developers working with eCos prefer
> Windows. So IMO Oyvind is not completely wrong here. Making it
> easier to develop for eCos under Windows (i.e. without cygwin)
> wouldn't be bad.

Nobody's said it would be bad.  We are are saying that
expecting Linux users to do it is a bit unrealistic:

   1) we don't know how
   2) we've got other things we'd rather do
   3) most of us don't really care

From what I can tell the eCos maintainers all use Linux as do
most of the experienced users. 

If you wanted to pony up £100,000 or so, I'm sure eCosCentric
(or somebody) could be contracted to cobble up a Windows
development environment that doesn't depend so much on Cygwin.

It's still going to have to include bash, Gnu make, TCL, etc. I
suppose you could try to use "native" Win32 clones of those
tools (do such things exist).  So it's not going to be much
simpler than a frozen subset of Cygwni anyway...

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  I'm having an
                                  at               EMOTIONAL OUTBURST!! But,
                               visi.com            uh, WHY is there a WAFFLE
                                                   in my PAJAMA POCKET??


-- 
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss

Re: [ECOS] eCos on Windows without Cygwin - try SFU ;)

[rtos]

> The problem with Cygwin is that it is a lot of hassle. Having a
> virtual linux box is also a lot of hassle... If coLinux was sharpned
> quite a few notches(in terms of beating the crap out of Cygwin w.r.t.
> installation), it might be a viable option.
> 
> > Of course, still best hit is to convince FPGA vendors to start porting
> > their tools to Linux.
> 
> A rather quixotic undertaking! :-)
> 

Maybe you should look at SFU (Microsoft Windows Services for UNIX). I
believe it has gcc 3.3. 




-- 
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss