2011/10/19 Georg-Johann Lay <a...@gjlay.de>:
> Georg-Johann Lay schrieb:
>>
>> Denis Chertykov schrieb:
>>
>>> What difference in size of avr-libc ?
>>
>> I have no tool for smart size analysis, so here is just a diff:
>>
>> After rebuilding avr-libc with respective compiler version, did
>> respectively:
>>
>> $ find . -name 'lib[mc].a' -exec avr-size {} ';' > size-orig.txt
>> $ find . -name 'lib[mc].a' -exec avr-size {} ';' > size-patch.txt
>>
>> and then
>>
>> $ diff -U 0 size-orig.txt size-patch.txt > size.diff
>>
>> As far as I can see, there is not a big gain but no object increases in
>> size.
>>
>> For some files like ./avr/lib/avr2/libc.a:dtoa_prf.o size gain is 3%.
>> For ./avr/lib/avr4/libc.a:vfprintf_std.o it's 1.7% and for others just one
>> instruction better.
>
> Actually there are some cases where the size increases by one instruction:
>
>> - 464 0 0 464 1d0 realloc.o (ex
>> ./avr/lib/avr31/libc.a)
>> + 466 0 0 466 1d2 realloc.o (ex
>> ./avr/lib/avr31/libc.a)
>
>> - 464 0 0 464 1d0 realloc.o (ex
>> ./avr/lib/avr3/libc.a)
>> + 466 0 0 466 1d2 realloc.o (ex
>> ./avr/lib/avr3/libc.a)
>
> Will have a look tomorrow; presumably it's adding +/-1 that force a scratch
> whilst the old code does not.
>
However results are good.
The patch can be committed.
Denis.
