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
