Von: Grant Edwards
Gesendet am: 23 Jun 2010 18:01:14
I never got one. In theory, my frontend should capture stdout and
stderr. And normally I see any output from compiler and/or linker. So
I never thought that I was missing the -Wl prefix.
That's bizarre.
Indeed. I just tested it again
Von: Grant Edwards
Gesendet am: 22 Jun 2010 16:16:20
segments - = sections. I think I got the 'empty' by browsing the ld
option description. Or i dedutcted it from your expression of
discarded unused content.
unused != empty
right. Well, when all content has been discarded because being
One reason why keep it even if unreferenced may be the default even when
optimizations are enabled is that these tools (binutils, gcc) are primarily
used in environments that have far more capabilities, and couldn't care less
if a few extra kilobytes are present in the image. If you work in Linux
- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -
Von: Grant Edwards
Gesendet am: 21 Jun 2010 16:54:37
If I understood the linker scripts correctly, the linker will put all
.text and .text.* compiler segments into the linker text segment.
After the unreferenced .text.* sections are discarded, the
On 2010-06-22, JMGross msp...@grossibaer.de wrote:
If I understood the linker scripts correctly, the linker will put all
.text and .text.* compiler segments into the linker text segment.
After the unreferenced .text.* sections are discarded, the remaining
ones will all be placed into the
Von: Grant Edwards
Gesendet am: 18 Jun 2010 19:09:51
On 2010-06-18, JMGross msp...@grossibaer.de wrote:
I dug out some older project files and if I understand their old
makefile correctly, all object files were put into a library (.a) and
then this was fed into the linker. So maybe this was
On 2010-06-21, JMGross msp...@grossibaer.de wrote:
Unfortunately., my boss really dislikes me posting our project code into
the world.
Yes, bosses can be funny that way.
I didn't set up a separate project for checking. I just took a
randomly chosen existing project, added the function foo()
On 2010-06-21, Grant Edwards grant.b.edwa...@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you for posting a real example. Now we can figure out what's
going on.
First, both -ffunction-sections and -gc-sections flags are commented
out in your makefile.
Second, it's '--gc-sections' not '-gc-sections'
Oops. That
On 2010-06-15, Grant Edwards grant.b.edwa...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2010-06-15, JMGross msp...@grossibaer.de wrote:
The suggested compiler/linker flags, however, let the compiler treat
each function as a separate compilation unit, starting at its own
0-offset address.
[...]
Also, it keeps
- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -
Von: Grant Edwards
Gesendet am: 17 Jun 2010 21:01:31
On 2010-06-17, JMGross msp...@grossibaer.de wrote:
[I don't suppose you could wrap lines in your posts?]
I'll try. :) Normally, the receivers mail program should do if necessary.
(You don't use plain
On 2010-06-18, JMGross msp...@grossibaer.de wrote:
I dug out some older project files and if I understand their old
makefile correctly, all object files were put into a library (.a) and
then this was fed into the linker. So maybe this was the reason for
the missing code if the project object
- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -
Von: Grant Edwards
An: mspgcc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Gesendet am: 16 Jun 2010 21:43:44
On 2010-06-16, JMGross msp...@grossibaer.de wrote:
I had this happen long time ago when I included the different object
files or libraries in the wrong order with
On 2010-06-17, JMGross msp...@grossibaer.de wrote:
[I don't suppose you could wrap lines in your posts?]
Not with the gc-sections feature. But I'm pretty sure it happened
with object files and not just libraries. (And I'm sure that no
libraries were linked before the object files, but maybe
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Grant Edwards
grant.b.edwa...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2010-06-17, JMGross msp...@grossibaer.de wrote:
interesting. Still two wasted bytes (I don't think the linker will
move the following code and adjust any other jumps if necessary),
Yes, if the linker supports
On 2010-06-17, Przemek Klosowski przemek.klosow...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Grant Edwards
grant.b.edwa...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2010-06-17, JMGross msp...@grossibaer.de wrote:
interesting. Still two wasted bytes (I don't think the linker will
move the following code and
elimination was a bad example. (I was a bit in haste
when I wrote this, it was at the end of my office hours)
JMGross
- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -
Von: Grant Edwards
An: mspgcc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Gesendet am: 15 Jun 2010 20:26:25
Betreff: Re: [Mspgcc-users] Unused functions
On 2010-06-16, JMGross msp...@grossibaer.de wrote:
I had this happen long time ago when I included the different object
files or libraries in the wrong order with GCC under linux. After
reordering them so that their contend had already been referenced,
all was well. I think I had similar
Hi all:
I have been noticing that a function that is not used by any module in
program gets linked anyway, occupying some precious amount of memory.
Suppose that you were sharing a common module but you only needed some
functions of it. Is there a way to avoid linking all the unused
functions?
- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -
Von: Alex Polbach
An: mspgcc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Gesendet am: 15 Jun 2010 11:02:58
Betreff: [Mspgcc-users] Unused functions occupying unnecessary memory
Hi all:
I have been noticing that a function that is not used by any module in
program gets linked anyway
On 2010-06-15, Alex Polbach alex.polb...@wimet.es wrote:
I have been noticing that a function that is not used by any module in
program gets linked anyway, occupying some precious amount of memory.
Suppose that you were sharing a common module but you only needed
some functions of it. Is
On 2010-06-15, Grant Edwards grant.b.edwa...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2010-06-15, Alex Polbach alex.polb...@wimet.es wrote:
I have been noticing that a function that is not used by any module in
program gets linked anyway, occupying some precious amount of memory.
Suppose that you were sharing a
Thanks a lot for so fast answers!!
I have added both flags to CFLAGS and LDFLAGS and they work just fine.
Very neat solution.
Alex
On 2010-06-15, Grant Edwards grant.b.edwa...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2010-06-15, Alex Polbach alex.polb...@wimet.es wrote:
I have been noticing that a function that
On 2010-06-15, Alex Polbach alex.polb...@wimet.es wrote:
Thanks a lot for so fast answers!!
I have added both flags to CFLAGS and LDFLAGS and they work just fine.
Very neat solution.
I'm not sure how much those features get used with mspgcc, but I found
them to be invaluable if you want to
, as they are all referenced as
externals.
If you want it or not depends on your project.
JMGross.
- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -
Von: Grant Edwards
An: mspgcc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Gesendet am: 15 Jun 2010 17:54:00
Betreff: Re: [Mspgcc-users] Unused functions occupying unnecessary
On 2010-06-15, JMGross msp...@grossibaer.de wrote:
The suggested compiler/linker flags, however, let the compiler treat
each function as a separate compilation unit, starting at its own
0-offset address. This means teh compiler will not resolve any local
references and let it all to the
25 matches
Mail list logo
