|
|
 | | Re: BrickOS Patches and Development
|
| (...) Case in point: when I first started on this post some weeks(!) ago, hoenicke.ath.cx wasn't responding. (...) And it's not getting easier if we've collected different sets of patches and then make further changes based on those... So yeah, we (...) (16 years ago, 31-Mar-09, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
| | | | | BrickOS Patches and Development
|
| Greetings, This is a follow up to earlier postings discussing the development status of BrickOS. While the Sourceforge project has not had much activity of late, I've come across various modifications that, unfortunately, have never made it (...) (16 years ago, 15-Feb-09, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
| | | | | Re: Development status
|
| (...) I think we need to stick with 2.16.1, I don't know whether porting brickos to elf is really worth the trouble. Newer gcc versions would be nice, indeed, and brickos also builds fine with (some of?) these, but I never actually got it to run on (...) (16 years ago, 31-Jan-09, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
| | | | | Re: Development status
|
| Hi all, This is great to see there's still some interest. I may not have opportunity to post over the next couple days, but I have created some patches against the latest Sourceforge CVS (as I believe there are a few differences between the CVS and (...) (16 years ago, 30-Jan-09, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
| | | | | Re: Development status
|
| (...) From what I can tell, support for h8300-hitachi-hms(/coff) was dropped from binutils after 2.16.1. I have no real idea how much work it would take to port brickOS (plus brickemu, preferably) over to elf, but I suspect that it'd be a lot. (...) (16 years ago, 29-Jan-09, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
|
