> -----Original Message----- > From: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > org] On Behalf Of Curtis Maloney > Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 3:03 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] OPTIMIZE_SPEED for avr5? > > 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?
I'm not quite sure how that would work as the --mcu flag just doesn't take an architecture type (like avr5) but the device name such as --mcu=atmega128. And again, how would the toolchain handle this? The driver (avr-gcc) would have to send special flags to the linker (ld) to map to a fixed library file name and automatically set an -l flag internally. This would mean target specific changes to both GCC and GNU Binutils that would never have a chance to get committed upstream. Eric _______________________________________________ AVR-libc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-libc-dev
