Re: sdk-ng

Erwin Rol

Hey Anas,

On 14-6-2017 3:56, Nashif, Anas wrote:
The experience should be the same as with the current SDK.
Well than I will be happy :-)

I did not
say anything about downloading IDEs and from various vendors. There are
well-established, standalone toolchains available that are better
supported than what we have in the current SDK.
But do they offer what Zephyr needs? Especially when it comes to the C
library. To take the RTEMS example again, newlib has a lot of RTEMS
support in it.;a=tree;f=newlib/libc/sys;hb=HEAD

When things like that are also needed for Zephyr how will those things
end up in the vendor toolchains (and in what timeframe) ?

Membership in the yocto
project is really not a factor here.
When working for small companies one can quickly forget that at Intel
not everybody talks to each other during the coffee break :-)

We are trying to keep things simple
and remove the burden of having to maintain toolchains as part of the
project. Believe it or not, the Zephyr SDK is also a one man show, yocto
being a tool here that has nothing to do with the content of the SDK
But Yocto does offer infrastructure to download and build tools via a
documented setup.

And no, yocto does not give us an SDK on no Linux platforms and
I thought there was the possibility to do a Candadian cross via
meta-mingw. But never used it so can't say if it would work for the
Zephyr toolchain.

I am not sure what you mean with ptxdist... is a buildroot-like tool that also used crosstools. It
is mainly used in Germany I guess.

For the Zephyr developer
just like with the current SDK it will be a downloadable file that
installs some toolchains, in other cases it will download toolchains
maintained by vendors like ARM, Intel and Synopsys etc.
Still not convinced it is the right way, but since I can not "put my
money where my mouth is", I will just accept what ever will be offered. :-)

- Erwin

Join to automatically receive all group messages.