Hi Andrew, > I started up my public tree because I wanted to help in this area but > all the changes in 0.9 have stalled that effort.
One thing I would be glad to see backported from 0.9 to your public tree is the support for other compilers like pcc and suncc. I'm personally looking for the support of Clang/LLVM ! :) Thanks // Yocto ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Dennison" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 9:31 PM Subject: Re: [Prex-devel] Porting recommendations > On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 3:25 AM, David Given <[email protected]> wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> On 28/05/10 00:00, Andrew Dennison wrote: >> [...] >>> I can describe it in general terms. >> [...snip...] >> >> That's very interesting; it's nice to hear how this sort of thing works >> in the real world. ARM, I presume? If I may ask, what made you decide to >> use Prex and not a more established OS like ECOS or FreeRTOS? > > BookE PowerPC. First think I did with Prex was port it to a new > architecture. We wanted to use the MMU for security reasons as we run > "untrusted" generated code. Once we collated our requirements the list > of RTOS options got rather narrow. We seriously consider some > expensive commercial options too but in the end Prex was the best fit. > > [...] > >> I suspect Kohsuke Ohtani simply doesn't have >> time/inclination to be a source herder. As you know, it's a thankless >> and surprisingly complicated job. > > In our early discussions he was always keen to get more contributors > to Prex. Maybe real life has got in the way over the last few years? > > I started up my public tree because I wanted to help in this area but > all the changes in 0.9 have stalled that effort. > >> >> However, the really nasty bits were (a) figuring out how to drive ld to >> link my image together in really non-standard ways and (b) figuring out >> the build system. Prex's Make-based build system is a paragon of >> excellence compared to most Make build systems, but it's still a Make >> build system and therefore inscrutable and horribly inflexible, and I >> had to rewrite big chunks of it to support my kernel XIP stuff. > > We have fixed up a lot of the make file issues in the tree I > published. For example we added full dependency checking and support > for parallel make. Thinking about it I could not use a Vanilla 0.9 > prex as we have improved this area a lot in our tree. > > I can see why XIP was hard for you. One thing I added long ago was the > ability to have static drivers linked into kernel which is why kernel > XIP was easy for us. > > Maybe I should have pushed you towards my 0.8.1 tree after all... > > Andrew > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Prex-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/prex-devel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ThinkGeek and WIRED's GeekDad team up for the Ultimate GeekDad Father's Day Giveaway. ONE MASSIVE PRIZE to the lucky parental unit. See the prize list and enter to win: http://p.sf.net/sfu/thinkgeek-promo _______________________________________________ Prex-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/prex-devel
