Joerg Wunsch wrote:
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).
My vote is always towards more choice. But instead of -l, could we, perhaps, abuse the CPU type flag, and have (for example) avr5 for size, and avr5f for speed?
Then if there are concerns other than just code (linker maps, etc?) they, too, could be addressed.
Just my early morning, pre-coffee contribution. -- C _______________________________________________ AVR-libc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-libc-dev
