On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 00:16:28 +0100 Wolfgang Denk <w...@denx.de> wrote:
> Just two questions: > > Q1: Are we sure that the observed behaviour is intentional, and not > eventually unintended behaviour (well, a bug) in the new versions > of GCC? In general newer releases are supposed to provide better > optimization, but with GCC regressions seem to be more common? I'm pretty sure it's intentional (though lacking an option to turn it off seems ill-advised). It should reduce code size normally -- it's just that NAND SPL is too small for the savings to overcome the fixed cost of the mechanism. The main U-Boot images do seem to have gotten a bit smaller with 4.5. Going from 4.3 (doesn't do this) to 4.5 (does do this), I see SPL size increases of between 16 and 112 bytes. None of the boards in this patch went over 4096 bytes. Using -O2 instead of -Os, which disables this "optimization", with 4.5 results in even larger SPLs (with or without this patch). > Q2: What happens with older compilers, that don't need this? Is this > change a No-Op for these? With compilers that don't do this, the symbol references won't be generated, and no part of libgcc.a will be pulled in. -Scott _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
