As Eric Weddington wrote: > 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?
Yes, in the same sense as -mint8 produces smaller code when applied. Except, -mno-mainframe causes way less portability issues. Marek's suggestion to use __C_task has some merit as well (and is IMHO also compatible with other compilers, at least with IAR), but would even require code changes. Perhaps we could combine them: allow for the __C_task attribute, and provide a command-line option that would treat each implementation of function main() as if __C_task were applied (so no code changes are needed). > If so, this certainly > doesn't help backwards-compatibility. Right now, we are already incompatible (with no option to the users to get rid of the incompatibility), and surprisingly few users really noticed it. > I like the ideal of standards conformance, but the bottom line is > that I lean towards practicality and no code bloat. Both are valid goals. We also need to be allowed to fix old mistakes. See above: other compilers also require you to specifically request that code-saving features. -- cheers, J"org .-.-. --... ...-- -.. . DL8DTL http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-) _______________________________________________ AVR-libc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-libc-dev
