> -----Original Message----- > From: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > org] On Behalf Of Joerg Wunsch > Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 2:28 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] [bug #19050] gcrt1.S should call > main ratherthanjumping to it > > As Anatoly Sokolov wrote: > > > I would prefer to correspond to 'C' standard completely, but we are > > ready to pay such price, for that that function 'main()' to be > > callable? > > That's I would like to have that as a command-line option. We > definately should adhere to the C standard by default, but by > suggesting the users to use an option like -momit-mainframe (:-), they > can adjust it to the current behaviour. Documentation needs to > clarify the implications of using that option. > > As for suggesting that to the users, I think the Makefile templates > (WinAVR, Mfile, AVR Studio Makefile generation) are already doing a > good enough job, so many users probably wouldn't notice it at all.
I'm sorry, could you clarify this? Are you suggesting that we will have to *add* a command-line option to get the smaller code? If so, this certainly doesn't help backwards-compatibility. > So far, I've seen a couple of users (maybe) complaining on > avrfreaks.net, not more, and in that case, it's already been the > pathological case you've been quoting. > > Of course, if the command-line option is impossible for some reason > (e.g. since it would make the RTL too complicated or whatever), we > really have to see whether standards conformance or code bloat is more > important for us. I like the ideal of standards conformance, but the bottom line is that I lean towards practicality and no code bloat. I would also prefer NOT adding a new command-line option to get the older smaller code. This induces versioning issues to achieve the same functionality. Eric _______________________________________________ AVR-libc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-libc-dev
