As David Brown wrote: > Size is the main priority when you are low on flash space - > otherwise, it is irrelevant. If your chosen AVR has 16k flash, then > it does not matter if the program code takes 2k or 15.9k of that > flash. In particular, for smaller devices, program space will be at > a premium, while for the larger devices, much of the flash will > often be things like tables or other data that is of fixed size.
The issue here is, to the best of my knowledge, we don't have access to the -O level when linking, so we cannot operate depending on the user's wishes. We thus have to decide for *one* implementation that goes into the library. Perhaps we could offer different sets of libraries containing these functions in their speed-optimized version, in the same sense as we are already offering different sets of printf and scanf libraries. That way, the users can decide to use a different implementation if they prefer (say, -lc is equivalent to -lc_size while there's a different -lc_fast available). -- 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 AVR-libc-dev@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-libc-dev
