On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, I wrote: > 2. The "emulation" will never be 100%. Maybe 99%. Maybe 99.99%. That last > fraction can be a major PITA, because it is not obvious. To compile a > kernel you need a lot of tools with a lot of explicit and implicit twists > to them. It is just a gut feeling that I wouldn't want to rely on this, > if I don't have to. The native way just seems the better way to do it to > me.
Since the term "native" seems to have triggered many other (very interesting) posts, just for completeness: in fact I chose bad wording for what I wanted to say in this post. In this case, with "native" I merely meant a real Linux box (vs. a Windows box), not necessarily a native ppc-linux machine. Native ppc-linux is definitely one way to go, although I'd tend to hold with one of the other posts to this thread. It pointed out the necessity/robustness/repoducability/beauty of clearly distincting between the host and the target. Regards, Marius ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marius Groeger SYSGO Real-Time Solutions GmbH mgroeger at sysgo.de Software Engineering Embedded and Real-Time Software www.sysgo.de Voice: +49-6136-9948-0 Am Pfaffenstein 14 www.osek.de FAX: +49-6136-9948-10 55270 Klein-Winternheim, Germany www.elinos.com ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
