-1
I will close this vote with my -1 vote.
I have mixed feelings. I appreciate that this it is a complication to
support such a foreign platform and problem that it is not used or
tested often enough to be stable. There have not been any visible uses
of the native build in the past couple of years and there have never
been a large group of people using the native build.
However, I also understand that for certain use cases, a clean native
build is required and support via some extra POSIX layer is not
sufficient. We are not talking about individual users, but Windows
native SDKs/IDEs. This is a small minority of the historical NuttX user
base. I will cite the Inviolables:
/*All Users Matter*/
* All support must apply equally to all supported platforms. At
present this includes Linux, Windows MSYS, Windows Cygwin,
Windows Ubuntu, Windows native, macOS, Solaris, and FreeBSD. No
tool/environment solutions will be considered that limit the
usage of NuttX on any of the supported platforms.
* Inclusive rather than exclusive
* Hobbyists are valued users of the OS including retro computing
hobbyists and DIY “Maker” hobbyists.
* Supported toolchains: GCC, Clang, SDCC, ZiLOG ZDS-II (c89),
IAR. Others?
* No changes to build system should limit use of NuttX by any user.
* Simplifying things for one user does not justify excluding
another user.
* We should seek to expand the the NuttX user base, not to limit
it for reasons of preference or priority.
* We must resist the pull to make NuttX into a Linux-only,
GCC-only, and ARM-only solution.
Greg
