Honored Contributor
Honored Contributor--- quote start ---
we are just about to start porting some linux code that was developed under the red hat linux environment to run under uclinux. most of the pc's and development tools in our office are windows-based but we have the option of running in a linux (red hat) environment.
so far, i have only used the windows-based tools to generate a kernel, a file system, and ran through the tutorial that came with the nios ii development board. my initial reaction is that compiling the code for the kernel on my 3.2 ghz windows xp machine was slower than it should be. is this partially due to the need to use cygwin for running all the necessary scripts? would this process be any faster if i was running on a native linux machine?[/b]
--- quote end ---
much faster, compiling under windows is slow, even more so when using cygwin. maybe i'm biased (because i've seen the mess that someone made of an embedded gnu/linux system fully developed under windows), but developing an embedded linux system should be done under linux, even if it was only in order to get a feel of the system. you also avoid accidental m$ intervention in your file system (e.g. in scripts, which can be a pain). there is currently only one thing i compile under windows and it's a gtk based firmware upgrade tool. i develop it in linux but need to release a windows binary for support. compiling it under windows/cygwin is several times slower....
--- quote start ---
originally posted by bjskill@jun 24 2005, 03:38 am
i would be interested in hearing what anyone is willing to share about their good and/or bad experiences using the altera tool chain (quartus, sopc builder, nios ii ide) and the nios ii embedded processor tools.
--- quote end ---
one of the first things i did, was removing the nios ii ide for a number of reasons. one being to align the development with our current mmu embedded architectures. second reason was to allow ppl code with their editors and with clear systems (autotools); imho, even basic knowledge in such systems avoids problems where stuff is hidden behind a front end; especially when you have a team of ppl working on the system.
<!--quotebegin-bjskill@Jun 24 2005, 03:38 AM we are currently planning on using the uclinux distribution version 1.3 (2.6.9 kernel), quartus ii, v4.2-sp1, and the nios ii embedded processor tools, v1.1. i would like to make a somewhat informed decision on which development environment would be best to use before we get too deep into the development cycle. --- Quote End --- We're more or less using the same, with that respect that all our code is based on official upstream releases. It took some time to clean up the code to get clean patches but now it's very good to have. We patch e.g. a released version of busybox (1.0-pre8 IIRC) with the changes of microtronix. The same for the kernel, take the 2.6.9, patch with uCLinux code and then patch with nios2nommu arch code. I would strongly suggest to do your active development on Linux (no windows specific hacks, much better performance, better feel with the system, multi-user platfrom, ....) instead of on a Windows machine. A disadvantage of this (from what I've seen from the Nios II IDE on Linux) is that some stuff has been hardcoded for windows paths (duh!). But again, you're better off dropping such an IDE anyway... We did this for MontaVista more than a year ago and never looked back... But then again, I'm a command line addict http://forum.niosforum.com/work2/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif We're doing our work on Debian/Sid btw...
