Recomended host environment?
joel.sherrill at oarcorp.com
Wed Aug 15 14:14:33 UTC 2007
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-08-15 at 07:49 +0000, Martin Strand wrote:
Your original post mentioned mvme162. If you have run RTEMS
executables on that board, please update the Wiki entry for that
BSP to indicate the RTEMS version, date, your handle, and
notes on the testing. If you ran the network demos, that is
really important to know.
If people do not update the Wiki pages to indicate testing,
we don't know people are using the BSPs or that they even
work. I don't have that much hardware. :)
>> Finally, here's my questions (which I hope some RTEMS users can help
>> me with):
>> Is there any suggestions on which target platform to use when starting
>> to work with RTEMS (in terms of easy to get started with, easy to
>> debug, good support, well documented turorials, BSP support, etc.)?
> i386-based target platforms probably are the best supported ones.
At least everyone has the same target hardware. This is
the primary problem on other architectures but the PC is
> Least recommended are the "small ones": tic4x (more or less dead and
> only of academical interest due to its peculiarities), avr (Incomplete
> port in RTEMS, fairly unstable toolchain), h8300 (I am not aware of
> anybody using it), and bfin (very new port with pretty immature
> All other targets are pretty much "on par".
>> Is there a prefered host system?
> rpm-based Linux systems.
> We (OAR, rtems.org) are supplying toolchain binaries (rpms) and
> toolchain src.rpms for RH/Fedora. As Mandriva isn't too different from
> RH/Fedora, the binaries are likely also to work on Mandriva or be
> rebuildable there.
I definitely agree here. Windows tools are improving but
Linux is better and faster for development.
>> Any prefered emulators?
> Depends widely on the target and host being used.
> Theoretically, this question is widely independent from RTEMS, because
> emulators should be able to run arbitrary target binaries, independently
> of the OS these binaries contain.
> Some targets have emulators in gdb, for some, qemu can be used, for some
> targets, other emulators should be applicable. Some emulators have
> special requirements on the host, etc.
This is a page which should help. It should list all the simulators
we know about that have the potential to or already run RTEMS.
>> Is there a certain version of RTEMS that's easier to get started with?
> Depends on what you are referring to.
> Wrt. the RTEMS code base, the "latest version" should always be easier
> to use than its predecessors.
> Wrt. building the RTEMS code, all ports in RTEMS are very similar, so
> the problems you'll be facing also should be similar. The typical
> new-comer issues circulate around using the GNU-toolchain (binutils,
> GCC) and using the RTEMS buildsystem ("Which flags to pass where and
> how" and issues in using the autotools).
> Should you be referring to "which target/BSP is easiest", the answer
> would be "The target you are familiar with" and "The one you have HW
> access to". To newcomers, this in most cases likely will mean pc-based
> systems ;)
The BSPs for the simulators included in gdb are easy to
get started with also. Since they are installed via the
RTEMS tool RPMs, they are just there.
When I help people install a development environment,
I usually demo one of those. It is possible on a fast machine
with fast net connection to get from nothing to running
a test executable on one of those simulators in < 30
minutes. bootstrap'ing from the CVS head
takes about 7-10 minutes so when you check out from
CVS, that takes some time.
Qemu is pretty easy to run pc386 applications and is a
standard RPM on Fedora. The SkyEye simulator isn't that
hard to use but you have to build it yourself.
> rtems-users mailing list
> rtems-users at rtems.com
More information about the users