20,741
edits
Building FlightGear - Cross Compiling: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
→Goals
m (→Goals) |
m (→Goals) |
||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
In addition, one challenge frequently encountered on the FlightGear forums is that RCs (release candidates) usually get very little, if any, thorough testing by end users and that Windows-based end-users form the largest share of our users, but most of them are unable to provide action-able bug reports, e.g. due to being unable to provide backtraces or running/using diagnostic tools like gdb, valgrind, google perftools etc. | In addition, one challenge frequently encountered on the FlightGear forums is that RCs (release candidates) usually get very little, if any, thorough testing by end users and that Windows-based end-users form the largest share of our users, but most of them are unable to provide action-able bug reports, e.g. due to being unable to provide backtraces or running/using diagnostic tools like gdb, valgrind, google perftools etc. | ||
Given the huge number of Windows based end-users, cross-compiled Windows binaries would ideally provide integrated diagnostics to deal with segfaults, memory leaks and to help with [[Built-in Profiler|profiling]], so that better bug reports can be provided by end-users, without having to be developers, and without having to build FG from source. | |||
This is also an issue identified by other developers (e.g. TerraGear). And it was one of the original reasons for integrating support for [[CrashRpt]]. | This is also an issue identified by other developers (e.g. TerraGear). And it was one of the original reasons for integrating support for [[CrashRpt]]. | ||