Ruud Vlaming <r...@betaresearch.nl> wrote: > 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.
Well, personally, I think it's a micro optimization that is only needed in some rare cases, when one really cares for the last 50 bytes of flash. (What's going to happen if the next bugfix release requires 20 more bytes then?) Given the amount of hackery required to binutils to implement the option, those few cases would probably be better served by the developer hacking some specific startup code, rather than using the avr-libc standard version plus the proposed option. It's for developers only who really know what they are doing, and the specific startup code would also allow to fill unused holes in the vector table, rather than only chopping off the end. I wouldn't veto against it though, as I think the matter is simply not important enough at all. -- cheers, J"org .-.-. --... ...-- -.. . DL8DTL http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-) _______________________________________________ AVR-GCC-list mailing list AVR-GCC-list@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-gcc-list
