Kevin Radke a écrit :
“John Doe” <> firstname.lastname@example.org> > wrote in message
news:94n3hl$24m$> email@example.com> …
“Kevin Radke” <> firstname.lastname@example.org> > wrote in message
news:94mqal$q55$> email@example.com> …
Yes, this is an obvious solution. I have in fact built cross gcc before
other platforms. However, we do not want to be in the business of
supporting these ports for our customers that would be using them in
conjunction with our product.
I suspect that QSSL is in a similar situation (i.e. they don’t wan’t to be
in the business of supporting all the cross development environments that
gcc supports). It seems, however, that they have at least some degree of
interest in supporting Windows <-> Neutrino. I believe that this support
currently not in a state that you are happy with, and you may very well be
justified in your dissatisfaction (I have not used the Windows tools, so I
don’t have an opinion on them).
I think Igors’ response was well intentioned, and useful in the general
sense, if not for your particular case. It does not justify the “Yes, this
is an obvious solution” response.
I agree that his response was well intentioned, and I did not intend
to make it seem trivial. Obvious solutions are not in general “bad” things,
just not always the preferred solution.
Another obvious solution is to just not use Neutrino, but that
is not a preferred option at the moment.
That is your judgement to make. It is obvious that not using Neutrino is
of your options; however; stating that in this newsgroup seems more of a
cynical attempt to get your issue elevated in importance, than a genuinely
useful piece of data for the readers of this newsgroup.
I would not term it “cynical”, but it was a (poor?) attempt to get
QNX’s attention on this matter.
Ultimately it is up to QNX to decide if supporting Windows hosted
cross compiler tools is a good business decision. Similar questions
have been asked in the past, with no definite answer…
Just to give an opinion.
After having though about the question when we planned to use qnx, we finally
found quite powerfull to develop for neutrino with neutrino as we can do lot of
things that a cross ide cannot do at test time. We have directly access to any
files, directory tree, lot of tools, shell, etc… Things which need a rsh or
phindows. So, we decided to edit within windows editor as qrtp editors makes me
shudder compare to the powerfull SlickEdit editor (just for example as I know by
experience that editors subject can launch attacks), and we build the
applications through phindows. For sure, Slickedit doesn’t support remote
commands as Sniff do, (other example,… just an example) but Sniff is very
expensive, so we cannot get the error messages back to editor output window. A
little bit uncomfortable but I prefer to pay this price.
We use WinCVS, connected to the qrtp cvs to manage our file versions.
I work daily like that, recursive makefiles are incredibly powerfull, we are
sure to be up to date with qrtp on any points, headers, librairies,
toolchain,… I no more want to hear talking about cross IDE, I don’t want to
wonder if my problems come from QNX or the cross ide.
Anyway, as qrtp moves lot at the moment, it’s not time to talk about cross ide,
especially if it’s not a QNX product!!!