I am sorry for this another mail. I forget to add c to
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> You didn't mention what those switches are.
I am using following options
1)Some –D options these are source specific defines.
2)Some –I options for specifying include files.
3) –Wall
4)Os (also tried O4)
> Also, I gcc 3.2 is not longer
> maintained, so you should try GCC 3.4 or preferably
> GCC 4.0.
We have plans to move towards GCC 4.0 however
development is currently using GCC 3.2 and thus it
would be best if Some immediate solution for GCC 3.2
may be worked out.
Currently as a tools developer I'm working towards
promoting new generation of GCC where GCC 2.91.5 is
being used. I have been able to port and test GCC 3.2
and convinced the development to move to it.
At most of the places there is gain in the code
generated however in a few binaries the source bloat.
unfortunately these binaries are the part of very
small project which is very very memory starved. If
this is not worked out then my attempts to push newer
versions of GCC would suffer a sever setback.
Moreover this target (SPARClet) had been deprecated
after GCC 3.2. Moving immediately to higher version
would not anyway be possible.
I would highly appreciate if you can give me any
pointers to make the size reduction in GCC 3.2
consistent.
Thanks,
Milind
__________________________________
Discover Yahoo!
Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out!
http://discover.yahoo.com/online.html
