From owner-freebsd-questions Tue May 9 16:26:50 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from bachue.usc.unal.edu.co (bachue.usc.unal.edu.co [168.176.3.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BCAB37BACC for ; Tue, 9 May 2000 16:26:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from giffunip@asme.org) Received: from asme.org ([216.226.229.18]) by bachue.usc.unal.edu.co (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with ESMTP id AAA21D2 for ; Tue, 9 May 2000 18:25:23 -0400 Message-ID: <39184EBF.A48E5023@asme.org> Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 12:45:36 -0500 From: "Pedro F. Giffuni" Organization: Universidad Nacional de Colombia X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en]C-CCK-MCD {Sony} (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org Subject: What exactly is an embedded system ? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG I was undecided if this should go to questions or to hackers... I understand that FreeBSD is used a lot for embedded systems. I thought this would mean that the kernel, libc and some simple userland utilities should be portable for any of the "embedded targets" supported by gcc. On gcc, embedded systems seem to be OS independent: i386-elf instead of i386-freebsd-elf etc... I tried to build some userland stuff (ls, csh, strip, make) on Unixware and found that we use many unstandard headers (fts.h, err.h) on these utilities, FWIW I ended up using netbsd's make that was more portable. Would it be desirable to make these utilities more portable? Is there any relation between the system being portable and it's use in embedded systems? cheers, Pedro. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message