On Saturday 13 June 2009, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > > See above. There already *IS* such an #ifdef, but it's just not
> > > > > cluttering up the guts of that driver.
> > > >
> > > > you adding MUST have NO size impact on other board
> > > >
> > > > if we apply you code as it we will increase the size of u-boot for
> > > > every rm9200 board that use the ethernet
Not on any compiler I've used for at least the past dozen years or so.
> > > i dont get it. the CPP expands into if(0) and unless you have a
> > > completely shitty compiler, gcc will do dead code elimination on it
> > > resulting in the same binary size.
> >
> > I've seen to much "shitty version" that does not do it correctly
> > so I prefer ot avoid the problem
Which compiler versions are that broken? And are used regularly
to build rm9200 U-Boot code? At normal optimization levels?
(We know that disabling optimization puts out all kinds of crap.)
This is really basic stuff: "if (0) { dead } else { live }" and
the converse.
> i'm pretty sure we're already relying on this behavior. so you've got a
> bigger problem that needs addressing (i.e. shit can that compiler) than what
> David is proposing.
I know that when Linux started relying on that type of dead-code
elimination quite a few years back, nobody thought this was a
real issue. And Linux is, on the whole, far more demanding of
compilers than U-Boot.
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
