I think this is a nice feature, and i see no harm. At some projects
i also put code in the vector table to save space.
As others have pointed out, developers should know what they are doing,
which is the case with many other compiler switches as well.
Also, i do not find the name less cryptic some other switches out
there (for example --relax) but that will always be a matter of
taste of course. I have no problem with an other name as well,
for example: --minimal-vector-table.
In short: Good Work Senthil!
Ruud
On 15-02-13 08:31, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
Senthil Kumar Selvaraj wrote:
Like the others said, the patch does not change the default behavior
for unhandled interrupts - they still branch to __bad_interrupt. The
user would have to explicitly use the --shrink-ivt option to change
that - at which point, I guess he should be knowing what he's doing.
If the feature is off per default, that should be enough to make it a
"safe" feature. User will know what options they are activating.
What I don't like is the "--shrink-ivt", I'd rather prefer something
less cryptic like "--shrink-vectors" or "--optimize-vectors" or similar.
One technical question:
Does this really need binutils changes, or could it be achieved by
linker script improvements, e.g. start .text after the last .vector?
Currently the size of .vectors is forced by crt.o, but maybe there are
other way to do it?
Johann
_______________________________________________
AVR-GCC-list mailing list
AVR-GCC-list@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-gcc-list
_______________________________________________
AVR-GCC-list mailing list
AVR-GCC-list@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-gcc-list
