[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Compile directly on target?



Title: RE: Compile directly on target?

Related to a USB drive:
Was it easy to mount the flash driver via the USB? Is there anything special that needs to be done to enable it as a mount?

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dev-etrax@xxxxxxx.com">mailto:owner-dev-etrax@xxxxxxx.com] On Behalf Of Hans-Peter Nilsson
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 1:31 PM
To: mark.richards@xxxxxxx.com
Cc: dev-etrax@xxxxxxx.com
Subject: Re: Compile directly on target?

> From: "Mark Richards" <mark.richards@xxxxxxx.com>
> Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 13:55:25 -0400

> I'm asking my Etrax 82 to do a lot lately and apologize to the list if
> I am asking too many questions.  However, perhaps my enthusiasm (and
> newness) will be inspiring and maybe helpful to others who want to use this platform.
>
> I have installed a flash memory card reader on the Etrax 82 (and have
> docs for doing so if anyone needs them).  This was done to enable the following:

I *seriously* rather suggest NFS mounts if you want to add storage and expecting any amount of data going through it.
Flash memory is a bit too short-lived to use as "real"
short-term (seconds, minutes, hours) storage.  Related
sidetrack: I used a SanDisk cruzer mini 256M (a USB flash stick) on a devboard_82 to store SMTP transaction logs at ~300KiB a day over the last four weeks, and it's developed too many bad sectors for this to be useful for that kind of throughput workloads.  NB: Maybe I goofed.

> I'd like to install the cris compiler on the etrax itself.  This will
> permit, I presume, compilation and linking without having to perform
> any special hacks or workarounds or makefile adjustments.  In fact, I
> may be wrong but am assuming that a cross-compiler might not be needed
> at all.

Since you ask, IMHO you're underestimating the work to get the toolchain up on the target system (which is not designed for compilation so it'll be quite much slower than your PC), and overestimating the work-overhead of cross-compilation.

> Maybe I must just install gcc and binutils and go.
>
> Has anyone done this?

Yes, but on a larger (or "less smaller") system, corresponding to "devboard_ide".  And don't forget that I maintain the toolchain.

In summary, it's *not* worthwhile, particularly not if the main reason you want to pursue this is that you consider cross-compilation a bit complicated.

>  Any suggestions?

I *really* suggest you stick to cross-compilation.  There's lots of other fun stuff to do.

brgds, H-P