From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tim Bird Subject: cross-compiling alternatives (was Re: [PATCH 0/1] Embedded Maintainer(s)...) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:23:06 -0700 Message-ID: <48513F5A.6010008@am.sony.com> References: <1209577322.25560.402.camel@pmac.infradead.org> <200806102235.09598.rob@landley.net> <484F66F8.4020409@snapgear.com> <200806111941.51221.rob@landley.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200806111941.51221.rob@landley.net> Sender: linux-embedded-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Rob Landley Cc: Greg Ungerer , Sam Ravnborg , Leon Woestenberg , David Woodhouse , linux-embedded@vger.kernel.org Rob Landley wrote: > However, having one or more full-time engineers devoted to debugging > cross-compile issues is quite a high price to pay too. Moore's law really > doesn't help that one. > > I'm not saying either solution is perfect, I'm just saying the "build under > emulation" approach is a viable alternative that gets more attractive as time > passes, both because of ongoing development on emulators and because of > Moore's law on the hardware. I agree with much that you have said, Rob, and I understand the argument for getting the most gain from the least resources, but I have a philosophical problem with working around the cross-compilation problems instead of fixing them in the upstream packages (or in the autoconf system itself). Once someone fixes the cross-compilation issues for a package, they usually stay fixed, if the fixes are mainlined. -- Tim ============================= Tim Bird Architecture Group Chair, CE Linux Forum Senior Staff Engineer, Sony Corporation of America =============================