From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sfi-mx-1.v28.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.28.121] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by 3yr0jf1.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MHdse-0004Yg-QN for ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:11:44 +0000 Received: from eu1sys200aog109.obsmtp.com ([207.126.144.127]) by 29vjzd1.ch3.sourceforge.com with smtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) id 1MHdsY-0005Ew-Aw for ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:11:39 +0000 Message-ID: <4A3B823C.8020009@st.com> Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:19:08 +0200 From: Francesco RUNDO MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4A3A049B.2000002@st.com> <4A3B542E.708@st.com> In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [LTP] [FIX HTML PATCH] ltp-genhtml List-Id: Linux Test Project General Discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Errors-To: ltp-list-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net To: naresh kamboju Cc: ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net, maxin john , brinda_mn@yahoo.co.in, Manas Kumar Nayak , Oleg Nesterov , rohit.170309@gmail.com Hi Naresh, naresh kamboju wrote: >Hi Francesco, > >Thanks for your comments. > >I have few questions >1. Are you compiling LTP on Host Machine and running on target boards? > Yes, precisely, I cross-build LTP on the HOST and run it on a different = TARGET machine. > >2. Is it cross complication with different tool chains? > Yes. I cross-compile for SH based platforms. See = http://www.stlinux.com/drupal for more details. >3. Do you export KERNEL_VERSION and MACHINE_ARCHITECTURE on Host or target? > On the HOST when I process the LTP-log to generate the corresponding = HTML file. > >At my end I am compile with cross tool chains and copy the LTP >complied source on target and executing the =93runltp=94. >In my case I don=92t get any variables from Host. >I am not exporting Any Macros on target. > >I guess. Most of our LTP users do same. > I'm not sure about LTP users use the above approach, but what I think = should be taken into account is """what is better for all the LTP users""". Do you agree ? Now, can I do an advantages/disadavantages analysis of the methods (mine = and yours) ? Yours (with usage of "uname -x"): =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D ADVANTAGES: *) Automatic generation of information (of course, more safe!). DISADVANTAGES: *) Need PERL on the TARGET machine; *) No flexible (I can't modify the info by adding more info....I have to = keep what "uname -x" provides); *) Can be executed only on the TARGET (on the HOST it provides wrong = information); Mine(with usage of "env variables"): =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D ADVANTAGES: *) No PERL is needed on the TARGET; *) Flexible (I could use the output provided by "uname -x" executed on = the TARGET or I can add more info if needed); *) Can be run both on the HOST and on the TARGET; DISADVANTAGES: *) Is not automatic as the user can properly define/export the relaetd = env variables. Now, from above analysis I think should be taken a final decision. > >Thanks for your info. > No problem. Best Regards Francesco Rundo ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- Crystal Reports - New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial Check out the new simplified licensing option that enables unlimited royalty-free distribution of the report engine for externally facing = server and web deployment. http://p.sf.net/sfu/businessobjects _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list