OpenEuphoria

2. Re: build error

• Posted by EUWX Apr 04, 2013
• 1365 views

I've read that there were various different kernels required for ARM family till the introduction of Kernel 3.7
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTE5ODI
"The Linux 3.7 kernel gets even more exciting with the merging of ARM multi-platform support. This work allows for a single Linux kernel build to contain support for multiple ARM SoCs/platforms.

Up to this point there's basically been a Linux kernel build for each ARM target/platform, which has been one of several problems complicating the ARM Linux platform. Fortunately with this multi-platform work merged for Linux 3.7, a single build is now able to target multiple platforms, in a somewhat similar manner to an x86 kernel image."

I have said it before and am saying it again, that if you want a single Euphoria on Linux equivalent to the x86 version, you will have to use a properly made and flexible Linux distro based on kernel 3.7.9 and above. Otherwise you are wasting your time, struggling with build after build, and test after test. At present Linaro is working in the right direction at a purely engineering level, and various distros are coming out incorporating the latest Kernels.

4. Re: build error

• Posted by EUWX Apr 04, 2013
• 1305 views

I will answer this question because it answers most of your other questions and misgivings.
I worked with 8080 processor, then 8086, then 80286, then 80 386, then Pentium, etc., etc.
Intel and Microsoft took great pains to make their processors and OSes as much backward compatible as possible.

I will not go back to 8080, but will start with YOUR experience.
YOU can even today run 16 bit software in console mode under XP and even some under Windows 7-32bit.
However, as we go up to windows 8 and 64 bit, things become impossible using 16 bit software.

In summary then the people at Intel and Microsoft did as much as they could to let you continue old software, and hence enabled you to a great extent to use your older software till they could not continue with the compatibility.
At the level of language development, people followed this trend and made efforts till they could not because of either Intel or Microsoft, or they could not justify support for older commands, or could not justify using older code when much better and faster newer code was available.

If you have understood that, DUDE, then you will be able to read about the ARM processor and its development, and notice the BIG difference.
The ARM processor is sold in a more basic structure (design only) over which is superimposed the needs of the manufacturer. YOU, DUDE, can buy a Licence for 100,000 versions of a particular design and YOU can modify that to suit your needs, and then manufacture. ARM sees what each of these new configurations do and incorporate PART into their NEXT design, and so on. Therefore, unlike the monopoly of design and manufacture of X86 processors (Intel), and without the need for maintaining OS feature continuity (Microsoft), the Linux world carried on with x86 as Intel and Microsoft did it and tried to cope with the ARM architectures the way the industry progressed, meaning need to have many different versions of ARM compatible Linux. Add to this the speed at which ARM was taken over the computing world, the speed of changes and developments in the phone and tablet world, it was not until late last year that the Linux world tried to bring a commonality between the different ARM CPUs. The kernel 3.7 was the first one when the need for commonality was fully recognized and subsequent to that the speed at which the commonality is being brought in, has been astounding.

Deep down, it is still based on "IF processor-x then elseif processor-y then..", but that is at the expense of the time of the ditro builder, and overall it is a good approach because, it can also include all the x86 processors in the IF clauses and eventually that deep level Make file can be more universal.

THAT , DUDE, is the answer from a very experienced OS and language developer. As we Brits say, "We lose all battles but the last", and I have the last laugh, DUDE!

You have discovered Linaro, and I suggested you continue in that directions, because they are more progressive than others and more importantly, the other recognize their importance.

6. Re: build error

• Posted by EUWX Apr 04, 2013
• 1242 views

You not only come close to not understanding, but YOU JUST LOST A CONTRACT, BECAUSE OF YOUR LACK OF UNDERSTANDING
I have had inquiries about a more flexible level of Linux distro based on Debian, and I have advised for pay. The commercial outfit has set up their own contract for further development - a contract for which I could not and cannot recommend your name.
As usually is the case, free advice is always considered worthless and paid advice is what people consider good.

So dude, you carry on with your work, and I have already written free a substantial part of what I have been paid to write in greater detail !
Naturally I cannot give any more free advice about Linux distros for Euphoria, (and I know you do not want advice anyway) but I am sure you will find them if you search.

8. Re: build error

• Posted by petelomax Apr 05, 2013
• 1249 views

This thread has got messed up somehow. At least the one titled "I think I spotted a bug in map.e" which has gotten "build error" tagged onto it.

10. Re: build error

• Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Apr 05, 2013
• 1213 views

That was a deliberate decision on my part to weed out posts on the other thread that had nothing to do with solving the issues that Jacques was dealing with (so at least the other thread is easier to read).