1. If you complain of missed optimisations, you should post the command line
switches you have used, the -Ox switch at least.
2. Don't use the naked attribute if you don't understand its implications -
here, main uses stack frame which has not been created due to naked; this might
work only by
On Jan 26, 2012, at 2:10 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
I tested the code with avr-gcc 4.5 and command line options -Os -mmcu=atmega8
With the attributes, the object size is 54 bytes.
Without the attributes the object size is 64 bytes.
With 4.5.3 ? Whatever this issue is, it apparently snuck
Johann: I could reproduce it with one of the 4.7 packages (an older one) you
provided.
---
Moreover, in 4.7 it also stores the variable to stack frame even without naked,
so that could be called a missed optimisation/regression.
---
As far as code ineffiency goes, while there is always a
William Chops Westfield wrote:
On Jan 26, 2012, at 2:10 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
I tested the code with avr-gcc 4.5 and command line options -Os -mmcu=atmega8
With the attributes, the object size is 54 bytes.
Without the attributes the object size is 64 bytes.
4.5.3 ? Whatever this
On Jan 26, 2012, at 2:10 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
I tested the code with avr-gcc 4.5 and command line options -Os -mmcu=atmega8
With the attributes, the object size is 54 bytes.
Without the attributes the object size is 64 bytes.
4.5.3 ? Whatever this issue is, it apparently snuck in
On 27.01.2012 01:40, William Chops Westfield wrote:
(reports are that 4.5.2 produced smaller code than 4.3.2)
Hmmm...
defiant joe [~/tmp]: avr-gcc -dumpversion
4.3.4
defiant joe [~/tmp]: avr-gcc -ggdb -Os -c -mmcu=atmega328p
-mshort-calls foo.c
defiant joe [~/tmp]: avr-size foo.o
text
William Chops Westfield wrote:
Hi, don't forget to use reply to all or at least to CC the lists themselves.
On Jan 27, 2012, at 3:23 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
4.5.3 ? Whatever this issue is, it apparently snuck in between 4.5.2
and 4.5.3.
The only remarkable difference between 4.5.2 and
William \Chops\ Westfield wes...@mac.com wrote:
int main(void) __attribute__ ((naked)) __attribute__ ((section (.init9)));
Instead of trying to force main into being naked, I think it would be
better to use the OS_main attribute.
Btw., please subscribe to the list. You might miss replies
Jan Waclawek schrieb:
Moreover, in 4.7 it also stores the variable to stack frame even
without naked, so that could be called a missed
optimisation/regression.
Thanks for pointing this out. I was lost in all that optimization
conversation and thought it was an optimization issue from the
-Original Message-
From: avr-gcc-list-bounces+eric.weddington=atmel@nongnu.org
[mailto:avr-
gcc-list-bounces+eric.weddington=atmel@nongnu.org] On Behalf Of
Bill
Westfield
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 4:28 PM
To: avr-gcc-list@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [avr-gcc-list] Weird
To condense and summarize:
Problem:
optiboot, a very small bootloader, grows signficantly in binary size when going
from gcc 4.5.2 to gcc 4.5.3. This turns out to be because it misses code
factoring optimizations in optiboot's main() function, which is declared with
attribute naked to save
On Jan 27, 2012, at 12:38 PM, Joerg Wunsch wrote:
please subscribe to the list. You might miss replies otherwise.
I am subscribed (at gmail); I've just be replying with the wrong from address
:-(
BillW
___
AVR-GCC-list mailing list
12 matches
Mail list logo
