Quantcast

Porting cegcc changes to latest version of cegcc

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
15 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Porting cegcc changes to latest version of cegcc

Pavel Pavlov
I'm thinking to update my version of cegcc to latest version of gcc. It look as the project is almost sleeping now.
So, I'd like to try to take changes made in cegcc into some latest release of binutils and gcc. What's the recommended way to do it?..
I already tried to compare, but the differences are HUGE so I can't know myself what fixes I'll need to apply to gcc.
Can you maybe tell me what version of gcc and binutil (svn revision) was initially taken as a base for cegcc, so that I could make a diff and apply it to latest version of gcc/binutils?

thanks

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint
What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone?
Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first
_______________________________________________
Cegcc-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cegcc-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Porting cegcc changes to latest version of cegcc

Danny Backx
On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 19:41 -0400, Pavel Pavlov wrote:
> I'm thinking to update my version of cegcc to latest version of gcc. It look as the project is almost sleeping now.

That's because my wife and daughter "stole" my two devices in exchange
for me being "allowed" to buy an Android phone.

> So, I'd like to try to take changes made in cegcc into some latest release of binutils and gcc. What's the recommended way to do it?..

Talk to the relevant mailing list.

> I already tried to compare, but the differences are HUGE so I can't know myself what fixes I'll need to apply to gcc.
> Can you maybe tell me what version of gcc and binutil (svn revision) was initially taken as a base for cegcc, so that I could make a diff and apply it to latest version of gcc/binutils?

See src/VERSIONS .

I can give you and other interested parties write access to the cegcc
svn if you like.

        Danny
--
Danny Backx ; danny.backx - at - scarlet.be ; http://danny.backx.info


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint
What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone?
Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first
_______________________________________________
Cegcc-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cegcc-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Porting cegcc changes to latest version of cegcc

Max Kellermann
On 2010/07/11 10:11, Danny Backx <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I can give you and other interested parties write access to the cegcc
> svn if you like.

Hi Danny & Pavel,

I also thought about updating cegcc, but decided against it because I
found merging/rebasing with Subversion too cumbersome.  Thought about
doing it cleanly with git (import gcc svn with all its history, copy
cegcc on top, rebase on latest gcc) - this way, we could easily
extract separate patches from cegcc, and submit them to gcc.

Max

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint
What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone?
Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first
_______________________________________________
Cegcc-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cegcc-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Porting cegcc changes to latest version of cegcc

Vincent Torri


On Mon, 12 Jul 2010, Max Kellermann wrote:

> On 2010/07/11 10:11, Danny Backx <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I can give you and other interested parties write access to the cegcc
>> svn if you like.
>
> Hi Danny & Pavel,
>
> I also thought about updating cegcc, but decided against it because I
> found merging/rebasing with Subversion too cumbersome.  Thought about
> doing it cleanly with git (import gcc svn with all its history, copy
> cegcc on top, rebase on latest gcc) - this way, we could easily
> extract separate patches from cegcc, and submit them to gcc.

We are still waiting that Pedro Alves merge the cegcc changes upstream...

Vincent

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint
What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone?
Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first
_______________________________________________
Cegcc-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cegcc-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Porting cegcc changes to latest version of cegcc

Pavel Pavlov
In reply to this post by Danny Backx
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Danny Backx [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Cc: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Cegcc-devel] Porting cegcc changes to latest version of cegcc
>
> On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 19:41 -0400, Pavel Pavlov wrote:
> > I'm thinking to update my version of cegcc to latest version of gcc. It look as
> the project is almost sleeping now.
>
> That's because my wife and daughter "stole" my two devices in exchange for
> me being "allowed" to buy an Android phone.
>
> > So, I'd like to try to take changes made in cegcc into some latest release of
> binutils and gcc. What's the recommended way to do it?..
>
> Talk to the relevant mailing list.
>
> > I already tried to compare, but the differences are HUGE so I can't know
> myself what fixes I'll need to apply to gcc.
> > Can you maybe tell me what version of gcc and binutil (svn revision) was
> initially taken as a base for cegcc, so that I could make a diff and apply it to
> latest version of gcc/binutils?
>
> See src/VERSIONS .


After checking some files I noticed that VERSIONS file and checked out octorer 17 2009 version of binutils. I merged all the changes into latest version of binutils. Also, I noticed that versions of binutils in cegcc svn has some strange changes, which look to me more likely like incorrect merge from previous versions of binutils. Plus, there are a bunch of files that simply do not exist in that 0ct17,2009 version of binutils.
The reason I wanted to merge binutils is because I have that strange problem that dlls produced with cegcc-4.4.0; dlls are almost twice bigger compared to builds with cegcc 4.1.0 (because half of the produced dll is filled with zeros). I checked object files that go into the dll and all of them are normal and have no zeros, but the final dll is full of shi...., I mean zeros. So, it looked as if it was a linker problem and the linker is part of binutils package. I thought that if I take latest binutils I'll probably get it fixed.
Still, after I merged changes into latest binutils I got the same results and the binaries produced are almost bitexact (at least that's a good sign that I didn't screw up with the merge).

>
> I can give you and other interested parties write access to the cegcc svn if
> you like.
>


If I knew anything about gcc internals and all these weird scripts that it uses, I'd took write access to svn, but compiler and everything related to it is something that I have zero knowledge about. I wouldn't even be sure to commit my merge because I can't even approve my changes, I merely compared folders of oct17,2009 binutils with binutils folder from gcc, and manually applied the same change to the latest version of binutils. All my changes would still need to be checked by others who have knowledge of gcc or cegcc changes. I can post a diff that I made to binutils svn if it's of any value to the project.
I'm thinking to try to do the same task with gcc 4.4.5 on weekend when I have some more free time.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint
What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone?
Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first
_______________________________________________
Cegcc-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cegcc-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Porting cegcc changes to latest version of cegcc

Pavel Pavlov
In reply to this post by Vincent Torri
> > On 2010/07/11 10:11, Danny Backx <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> I can give you and other interested parties write access to the cegcc
> >> svn if you like.
> >
> > Hi Danny & Pavel,
> >
> > I also thought about updating cegcc, but decided against it because I
> > found merging/rebasing with Subversion too cumbersome.  Thought about
> > doing it cleanly with git (import gcc svn with all its history, copy
> > cegcc on top, rebase on latest gcc) - this way, we could easily
> > extract separate patches from cegcc, and submit them to gcc.
>
> We are still waiting that Pedro Alves merge the cegcc changes upstream...
>
> Vincent
>



By the way, if anybody will do that, I think we should consider some changes that I had to apply to cegcc:
gcc\config\arm\coff.h :  (see http://readlist.com/lists/gcc.gnu.org/gcc-help/3/19086.html )


/* COFF targets use constant pool instead of MOVW/MOVT.  */
#define TARGET_USE_MOVT 0
This makes sure that gcc doesn't try to generate MOVW/MOVT sequence for relocs when you build for armv7.

It's probably binutils limitation, the error is:
....s: Assembler messages:
....s:10: Error: cannot represent BFD_RELOC_ARM_MOVW relocation in this object file format.


Still, that kinds of relocs are probably supported by the kernel (IMAGE_REL_BASED_HIGH and IMAGE_REL_BASED_LOW fron winnt.h)



The other important change is in gcc\config\arm\wince-pe.h:
#define BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT 64 has to be changed to 128. Many project use attribute aligned of 16 and gcc for that kind of attributes issues a warning that max platform alignment is 8 and aligns to 8 bytes only (which may or may not happen to be 8 bytes).

The reason for "has to be" instead of "should be" is because some neon instructions require 16 byte alignment. (vst.128)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint
What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone?
Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first
_______________________________________________
Cegcc-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cegcc-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Porting cegcc changes to latest version of cegcc

Danny Backx
In reply to this post by Pavel Pavlov
On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 14:59 -0400, Pavel Pavlov wrote:

> After checking some files I noticed that VERSIONS file and checked out
> octorer 17 2009 version of binutils. I merged all the changes into
> latest version of binutils. Also, I noticed that versions of binutils
> in cegcc svn has some strange changes, which look to me more likely
> like incorrect merge from previous versions of binutils. Plus, there
> are a bunch of files that simply do not exist in that 0ct17,2009
> version of binutils.
> The reason I wanted to merge binutils is because I have that strange
> problem that dlls produced with cegcc-4.4.0; dlls are almost twice
> bigger compared to builds with cegcc 4.1.0 (because half of the
> produced dll is filled with zeros). I checked object files that go
> into the dll and all of them are normal and have no zeros, but the
> final dll is full of shi...., I mean zeros. So, it looked as if it was
> a linker problem and the linker is part of binutils package. I thought
> that if I take latest binutils I'll probably get it fixed.
> Still, after I merged changes into latest binutils I got the
> same results and the binaries produced are almost bitexact (at least
> that's a good sign that I didn't screw up with the merge).

The "twice as big" and "zeroes" issue might be a consequence of my
incomplete work on supporting WinCE 6.1+ DLLs. Incomplete because I got
zero support and then when I was loosing courage, I got the Android
device ...

You can take out the WinCE 6.* changes and you'll probably see that that
issue is gone.

        Danny

--
Danny Backx ; danny.backx - at - scarlet.be ; http://danny.backx.info


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint
What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone?
Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first
_______________________________________________
Cegcc-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cegcc-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Porting cegcc changes to latest version of cegcc

Danny Backx
In reply to this post by Max Kellermann
On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 08:23 +0200, Max Kellermann wrote:

> On 2010/07/11 10:11, Danny Backx <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I can give you and other interested parties write access to the cegcc
> > svn if you like.
>
> Hi Danny & Pavel,
>
> I also thought about updating cegcc, but decided against it because I
> found merging/rebasing with Subversion too cumbersome.  Thought about
> doing it cleanly with git (import gcc svn with all its history, copy
> cegcc on top, rebase on latest gcc) - this way, we could easily
> extract separate patches from cegcc, and submit them to gcc.

I won't go into a discussion about which version management system to
use, I know too little of the differences between them. I doubt that
subversion, or even cvs, give you much less useful support here.

Basically, take a diff between 4.4.0 and (somewhere before my DLL
changes) and you should be up and running quickly.

> We are still waiting that Pedro Alves merge the cegcc changes
> upstream...

I'm not entirely sure that this will happen.

        Danny

--
Danny Backx ; danny.backx - at - scarlet.be ; http://danny.backx.info


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint
What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone?
Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first
_______________________________________________
Cegcc-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cegcc-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Porting cegcc changes to latest version of cegcc

Pavel Pavlov
In reply to this post by Danny Backx


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Danny Backx [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 16:20
> To: Pavel Pavlov
> Cc: [hidden email]
> Subject: RE: [Cegcc-devel] Porting cegcc changes to latest version of cegcc
>
> On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 14:59 -0400, Pavel Pavlov wrote:
> > After checking some files I noticed that VERSIONS file and checked out
> > octorer 17 2009 version of binutils. I merged all the changes into
> > latest version of binutils. Also, I noticed that versions of binutils
> > in cegcc svn has some strange changes, which look to me more likely
> > like incorrect merge from previous versions of binutils. Plus, there
> > are a bunch of files that simply do not exist in that 0ct17,2009
> > version of binutils.
> > The reason I wanted to merge binutils is because I have that strange
> > problem that dlls produced with cegcc-4.4.0; dlls are almost twice
> > bigger compared to builds with cegcc 4.1.0 (because half of the
> > produced dll is filled with zeros). I checked object files that go
> > into the dll and all of them are normal and have no zeros, but the
> > final dll is full of shi...., I mean zeros. So, it looked as if it was
> > a linker problem and the linker is part of binutils package. I thought
> > that if I take latest binutils I'll probably get it fixed.
> > Still, after I merged changes into latest binutils I got the same
> > results and the binaries produced are almost bitexact (at least that's
> > a good sign that I didn't screw up with the merge).
>
> The "twice as big" and "zeroes" issue might be a consequence of my
> incomplete work on supporting WinCE 6.1+ DLLs. Incomplete because I got
> zero support and then when I was loosing courage, I got the Android device
> ...
>
> You can take out the WinCE 6.* changes and you'll probably see that that
> issue is gone.
>




I don't understand completely what you mean here. What was the original reason for your changes that caused that doubled size&zeroes problem? Is that the infamous problem when binaries did not load on newer phones? By the way, I fixed that problem on my side differently. Because dlls that I load are quite big (around 10MB in total) then I have huge problem on Windows Mobile. Who knows windows mobile memory model will understand that: it's related to 32MB per process slot and all dlls combined take away upper part of that slot. So, either way, 10MB of dll's will likely cripple entire phone and will affect most of apps running on the phone; so I wrote my own dll loader. Basically, I load it using regular fread, parse PE headers, allocate executable pages and do all relocations manually... so, as of now I'm not that worried if gcc builds dll that doesn't load :) it seems that there some strange thing in wince loader, my manually written loader loads them just fine and works well.
I'll try to see svn log for your changes to try to figure out what the problem was, maybe I'll have some luck







------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint
What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone?
Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first
_______________________________________________
Cegcc-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cegcc-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Porting cegcc changes to latest version of cegcc

Pavel Pavlov
In reply to this post by Danny Backx
> > I also thought about updating cegcc, but decided against it because I
> > found merging/rebasing with Subversion too cumbersome.  Thought about
> > doing it cleanly with git (import gcc svn with all its history, copy
> > cegcc on top, rebase on latest gcc) - this way, we could easily
> > extract separate patches from cegcc, and submit them to gcc.
>
> I won't go into a discussion about which version management system to use,
> I know too little of the differences between them. I doubt that subversion,
> or even cvs, give you much less useful support here.
>
> Basically, take a diff between 4.4.0 and (somewhere before my DLL
> changes) and you should be up and running quickly.
>

Hi Danny,
I tried to do the merge into gcc tags/release_4_5_0 mearged all conflicts, made a couple of changes, but the end result is discouraging.
First of all, if I tried my simple test related to alignment, I see that the 4.5.0 cegcc does not align stack variables, the other big issue is that it still has double size dlls full of zeros.

I tried to check your changes related to 6.1 dll, and these changes are really small (two commits only). I tried to comment them out but the result was still the same and did not have any effect.
Maybe I didn't do something correctly... or maybe your change didn't actually have that negative effect. Are you sure that because of your change you get that problem?
thanks


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint
What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone?
Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first
_______________________________________________
Cegcc-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cegcc-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Porting cegcc changes to latest version of cegcc

Vincent Richomme
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 16:45:51 -0400
wrote:

>> > I also thought about updating cegcc, but decided against it because I
>> > found merging/rebasing with Subversion too cumbersome.  Thought about
>> > doing it cleanly with git (import gcc svn with all its history, copy
>> > cegcc on top, rebase on latest gcc) - this way, we could easily
>> > extract separate patches from cegcc, and submit them to gcc.
>>
>> I won't go into a discussion about which version management system to
>> use,
>> I know too little of the differences between them. I doubt that
>> subversion,
>> or even cvs, give you much less useful support here.
>>
>> Basically, take a diff between 4.4.0 and (somewhere before my DLL
>> changes) and you should be up and running quickly.
>>
>
> Hi Danny,
> I tried to do the merge into gcc tags/release_4_5_0 mearged all
conflicts,
> made a couple of changes, but the end result is discouraging.
> First of all, if I tried my simple test related to alignment, I see that
> the 4.5.0 cegcc does not align stack variables, the other big issue is
that
> it still has double size dlls full of zeros.
>
> I tried to check your changes related to 6.1 dll, and these changes are
> really small (two commits only). I tried to comment them out but the
result
> was still the same and did not have any effect.
> Maybe I didn't do something correctly... or maybe your change didn't
> actually have that negative effect. Are you sure that because of your
> change you get that problem?
> thanks
>
>

Hi,

Just for information, when I was still using actively cegcc and watching
this ML
I think Pedro Alves made a patch for gcc-4.5.
Please try to find it in the archives and if you cannot find it I will
try.

Regards
 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint
What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone?
Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first
_______________________________________________
Cegcc-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cegcc-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Porting cegcc changes to latest version of cegcc

Pavel Pavlov
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vincent Richomme [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 16:22
> To: Pavel Pavlov
> Cc: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Cegcc-devel] Porting cegcc changes to latest version of cegcc
>
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 16:45:51 -0400
> wrote:
> >> > I also thought about updating cegcc, but decided against it because
> >> > I found merging/rebasing with Subversion too cumbersome.  Thought
> >> > about doing it cleanly with git (import gcc svn with all its
> >> > history, copy cegcc on top, rebase on latest gcc) - this way, we
> >> > could easily extract separate patches from cegcc, and submit them to
> gcc.
> >>
> >> I won't go into a discussion about which version management system to
> >> use, I know too little of the differences between them. I doubt that
> >> subversion, or even cvs, give you much less useful support here.
> >>
> >> Basically, take a diff between 4.4.0 and (somewhere before my DLL
> >> changes) and you should be up and running quickly.
> >>
> >
> > Hi Danny,
> > I tried to do the merge into gcc tags/release_4_5_0 mearged all
> conflicts,
> > made a couple of changes, but the end result is discouraging.
> > First of all, if I tried my simple test related to alignment, I see
> > that the 4.5.0 cegcc does not align stack variables, the other big
> > issue is
> that
> > it still has double size dlls full of zeros.
> >
> > I tried to check your changes related to 6.1 dll, and these changes
> > are really small (two commits only). I tried to comment them out but
> > the
> result
> > was still the same and did not have any effect.
> > Maybe I didn't do something correctly... or maybe your change didn't
> > actually have that negative effect. Are you sure that because of your
> > change you get that problem?
> > thanks
> >
> >
>
> Hi,
>
> Just for information, when I was still using actively cegcc and watching this ML
> I think Pedro Alves made a patch for gcc-4.5.
> Please try to find it in the archives and if you cannot find it I will try.
>


I think I was subscribed to cegcc before 4.5.0 was released (release date is like a couple of months ago).
I tried to merge and see what I can do to fix it, but I came to conclusion that it's all wasted time. I'm not going to do this same job once there is a new gcc, since they don't want to take cegcc changes into mainline and they announced that arm-wince-pe support will be removed in 4.6.x. It's even difficult to get any replies related to arm/wince on gcc mailing list.
 If windows phone won't support native development I really hope that winphone7 will be born dead and completely eliminated from the marked asap. Major apps announced that they are dropping windows mobile support: firefox mobile, skype and almost every app that had a windows mobile port as a supplementary port. Wince existed for years and newbies like iphone and android stormed by wince and the only reason I personally programmed for wince is because it's possible to use portable code that runs on pc and windows mobile. I hardly doubt that I'll be ever learning Silverlight or whatever is required for winphone 7, or better to say I hope they miserably fail so that I wouldn't need to learn what Silverlight Is all about ... In one of their blogs about winpne7 and silverlight they said something like "500000 silverlight developers in a matter of a day became also windows phone 7 developers"... is that 500000 downloads of Silverlight they consider that there is 500000developers??!?? Complete BS...



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint
What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone?
Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first
_______________________________________________
Cegcc-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cegcc-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Porting cegcc changes to latest version of cegcc

İsmail "cartman" Dönmez
Administrator
Pavel Pavlov wrote
I think I was subscribed to cegcc before 4.5.0 was released (release date is like a couple of months ago).
I tried to merge and see what I can do to fix it, but I came to conclusion that it's all wasted time. I'm not going to do this same job once there is a new gcc, since they don't want to take cegcc changes into mainline and they announced that arm-wince-pe support will be removed in 4.6.x. It's even difficult to get any replies related to arm/wince on gcc mailing list.
 If windows phone won't support native development I really hope that winphone7 will be born dead and completely eliminated from the marked asap. Major apps announced that they are dropping windows mobile support: firefox mobile, skype and almost every app that had a windows mobile port as a supplementary port. Wince existed for years and newbies like iphone and android stormed by wince and the only reason I personally programmed for wince is because it's possible to use portable code that runs on pc and windows mobile. I hardly doubt that I'll be ever learning Silverlight or whatever is required for winphone 7, or better to say I hope they miserably fail so that I wouldn't need to learn what Silverlight Is all about ... In one of their blogs about winpne7 and silverlight they said something like "500000 silverlight developers in a matter of a day became also windows phone 7 developers"... is that 500000 downloads of Silverlight they consider that there is 500000developers??!?? Complete BS...

Its time to RIP cegcc, Danny and others took their time and did a great job, however Microsoft doesn't wanna play this way.

Anyhow thanks to everybody for keeping this project alive so far.

ciao,
ismail
Regards,
İsmail DÖNMEZ
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Porting cegcc changes to latest version of cegcc

Sébastien Lorquet
Everything is not over yet.

There is still a large amount of windows mobile device out there that deserve cegcc.

"windows phone" may be a silly thing, it's not the dominant os on the market yet.

I hope cegcc will continue to live for those of us who have normal WM phones.

Remember, there is still software written for the ataris and amigas.

Sebastien


On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 10:57 AM, İsmail "cartman" Dönmez <[hidden email]> wrote:


Pavel Pavlov wrote:
>
> I think I was subscribed to cegcc before 4.5.0 was released (release date
> is like a couple of months ago).
> I tried to merge and see what I can do to fix it, but I came to conclusion
> that it's all wasted time. I'm not going to do this same job once there is
> a new gcc, since they don't want to take cegcc changes into mainline and
> they announced that arm-wince-pe support will be removed in 4.6.x. It's
> even difficult to get any replies related to arm/wince on gcc mailing
> list.
>  If windows phone won't support native development I really hope that
> winphone7 will be born dead and completely eliminated from the marked
> asap. Major apps announced that they are dropping windows mobile support:
> firefox mobile, skype and almost every app that had a windows mobile port
> as a supplementary port. Wince existed for years and newbies like iphone
> and android stormed by wince and the only reason I personally programmed
> for wince is because it's possible to use portable code that runs on pc
> and windows mobile. I hardly doubt that I'll be ever learning Silverlight
> or whatever is required for winphone 7, or better to say I hope they
> miserably fail so that I wouldn't need to learn what Silverlight Is all
> about ... In one of their blogs about winpne7 and silverlight they said
> something like "500000 silverlight developers in a matter of a day became
> also windows phone 7 developers"... is that 500000 downloads of
> Silverlight they consider that there is 500000developers??!?? Complete
> BS...
>
>


Its time to RIP cegcc, Danny and others took their time and did a great job,
however Microsoft doesn't wanna play this way.

Anyhow thanks to everybody for keeping this project alive so far.

ciao,
ismail


-----
Regards,
İsmail DÖNMEZ

--
View this message in context: http://cegcc-devel.3372302.n2.nabble.com/Porting-cegcc-changes-to-latest-version-of-cegcc-tp5278887p5328817.html
Sent from the cegcc-devel mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint
What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone?
Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first
_______________________________________________
Cegcc-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cegcc-devel


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint
What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone?
Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first
_______________________________________________
Cegcc-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cegcc-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Porting cegcc changes to latest version of cegcc

Pavel Pavlov

It’s hard to believe that there will be no way to do native. I’m sure there will be a way to hack it or do something. It will still be almost the same os as usual… at that time I think cegcc will revive.

 

 

 

From: Sébastien Lorquet [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 06:40
To: cegcc-devel
Subject: Re: [Cegcc-devel] Porting cegcc changes to latest version of cegcc

 

Everything is not over yet.

There is still a large amount of windows mobile device out there that deserve cegcc.

"windows phone" may be a silly thing, it's not the dominant os on the market yet.

I hope cegcc will continue to live for those of us who have normal WM phones.

Remember, there is still software written for the ataris and amigas.

Sebastien

On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 10:57 AM, İsmail "cartman" Dönmez <[hidden email]> wrote:



Pavel Pavlov wrote:


>
> I think I was subscribed to cegcc before 4.5.0 was released (release date
> is like a couple of months ago).
> I tried to merge and see what I can do to fix it, but I came to conclusion
> that it's all wasted time. I'm not going to do this same job once there is
> a new gcc, since they don't want to take cegcc changes into mainline and
> they announced that arm-wince-pe support will be removed in 4.6.x. It's
> even difficult to get any replies related to arm/wince on gcc mailing
> list.
>  If windows phone won't support native development I really hope that
> winphone7 will be born dead and completely eliminated from the marked
> asap. Major apps announced that they are dropping windows mobile support:
> firefox mobile, skype and almost every app that had a windows mobile port
> as a supplementary port. Wince existed for years and newbies like iphone
> and android stormed by wince and the only reason I personally programmed
> for wince is because it's possible to use portable code that runs on pc
> and windows mobile. I hardly doubt that I'll be ever learning Silverlight
> or whatever is required for winphone 7, or better to say I hope they
> miserably fail so that I wouldn't need to learn what Silverlight Is all
> about ... In one of their blogs about winpne7 and silverlight they said
> something like "500000 silverlight developers in a matter of a day became
> also windows phone 7 developers"... is that 500000 downloads of
> Silverlight they consider that there is 500000developers??!?? Complete
> BS...
>
>

Its time to RIP cegcc, Danny and others took their time and did a great job,
however Microsoft doesn't wanna play this way.

Anyhow thanks to everybody for keeping this project alive so far.

ciao,
ismail


-----
Regards,
İsmail DÖNMEZ

--
View this message in context: http://cegcc-devel.3372302.n2.nabble.com/Porting-cegcc-changes-to-latest-version-of-cegcc-tp5278887p5328817.html
Sent from the cegcc-devel mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint
What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone?
Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first
_______________________________________________
Cegcc-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cegcc-devel

 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint
What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone?
Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first
_______________________________________________
Cegcc-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cegcc-devel
Loading...