[fpc-devel] "embedded" again

[Michael Van Canneyt]

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013, Sven Barth wrote:

> Am 15.01.2013 11:52, schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013, Michael Schnell wrote:
>> 
>>> On 01/15/2013 11:22 AM, Henry Vermaak wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 10:45:29AM +0100, Michael Schnell wrote:
>>>>> (c) seems the most appropriate way to allow for decent debugging
>>>>> performance, but seemingly nobody yet decently tried (or wrote
>>>>> instructions to) to get Lazarus running remote gdb via TCP/IP.
>>>> One of the options in the lazarus debugger settings is "GDB debugger
>>>> through SSH".
>>> I'll try to find instructions on this and try to install the gdb "stub" on 
>>> the QNAP and test this combination  ASAP. (SSH already is in place on the 
>>> QNAP.)
>>>> Remote debugging with gdb on the command line also works
>>>> well for many years.
>>> Do you mean independently of Lazarus and fpc ?
>>> 
>>> I already did test this with C programming and I all the time use Eclipse 
>>> to debug embedded software via a USB-JTAG adapter which AFAIK for gdb and 
>>> the system that controls gdb (here: Eclipse, but could be Lazarus as well) 
>>> is identically to remote debugging via ICP/IP..
>>>> You're not "stuck".
>>> Of course I am not really stuck. :-) :-) .
>>> 
>>> The program already does work nicely on the Linux PC server and I suppose 
>>> I in fact don't need to debug it  on the ARM. I just need to compile it. 
>>> And here I have the choice to install fpc on the QNAP (should be possible: 
>>> I already successfully did install gcc). But I understand that installing 
>>> fpc on the ARM is done by cross-compiling the compiler on a PC. So it 
>>> seems even easier to cross-compile the user program itself.
>> 
>> So
>> 
>> "Cross-compile app every time"
>> 
>> is easier/better than
>> 
>> "Compile cross compiler once and work natively as of then"
>> 
>> ?
>> 
>> That is a weird assumption. I would go for the second one, hands down...
>
> I wouldn't if the second one is significantly slower than the first one. 
> Otherwise I'd agree :)

On old hardware, maybe, but these days ?

Michael.