> -----Original Message----- > From: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > org] On Behalf Of Dmitry K. > Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 9:24 PM > To: avr-gcc-list@nongnu.org > Subject: Re: [avr-gcc-list] Add builtins in avr target. > > On Friday 18 April 2008 12:56, Weddington, Eric wrote: > > > > 2008/4/17, Wouter van Gulik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > >> For a 2 cycles delays an rjmp can be used. Saves an > instruction! > > > > > > > > And so on: > > > > > > > > 3 cycles: > > > > rjmp . > > > > nop > > > > > > I shall try to replace 'nop' with 'rjmp .' for two cycle > > > delay. It is necessary to check that the linker relaxation > > > pass will not remove the 'rjmp .' instruction. Now I do not > > > wish to complicate a code and to optimize 3..6 cycles delays. > > > > AFAIK, linker relaxation will do JMP->RJMP transformations > only. Going > > the other way is not a size optimization. > > Alas, not only. > > Linker relaxation replaces the (R)CALL,RET sequence > into (R)JMP,RET.
I'm confused. I thought we were talking about constructs like: > 3 cycles: > rjmp . > nop > Tail call optimization transforms (R)CALL,RET -> (R)JMP,RET as you mentioned above. But again it would not affect the "rjmp ." as above. Only RCALL. Eric _______________________________________________ AVR-GCC-list mailing list AVR-GCC-list@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-gcc-list