From: Martin Guy <martinwguy@gmail.com>
To: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
Cc: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>,
"crossgcc@sourceware.org" <crossgcc@sourceware.org>,
"buildroot@uclibc.org" <buildroot@uclibc.org>,
"Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>,
Simon Dawson <spdawson@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Two or three stages gcc build?
Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2013 18:41:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAL4-wQp_wK+Q6aNKNEj5L3GBf=2RcHk0Y+veYAxDobNKpTE=cw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130907134909.1619d80c@skate>
On 07/09/2013, Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> That said, even gcc 4.4 is relatively "old" by these days standards, so
> I am not sure it would make a huge difference compared to keeping the
> existing gcc 4.2.
Huge, no, if you mean in code size and speed. Just a few percent which
made the product fit into 128KB flash instead of overflowing it.
However it (and Atmel 4.3.2, which is also based on gcc-4.4) generates
correct code in at least one case where the older toolchain generated
wrong code, which, for the customer in question, made the difference
between a working executable and one that crashed at random.
Unsupported targets like AVR32 and my MaverickCrunch FPU stuff stop at
gcc-4.4 because of upheavals in the code-generator structure of GCC
between gcc-4.4 and 4.5, which makes forward-porting patches not as
simple as it was from 4.1 and 4.4, and because no one cares enough
about them to fund the work.
M
--
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-09-07 18:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-07-05 21:38 Thomas Petazzoni
2013-09-05 17:31 ` Khem Raj
2013-09-06 12:58 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2013-09-06 16:59 ` Khem Raj
2013-09-07 9:15 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2013-09-07 11:45 ` Martin Guy
2013-09-07 11:49 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2013-09-07 18:41 ` Martin Guy [this message]
2013-09-07 18:43 ` Martin Guy
2013-09-19 5:03 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2013-10-08 18:58 ` Thomas Petazzoni
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAL4-wQp_wK+Q6aNKNEj5L3GBf=2RcHk0Y+veYAxDobNKpTE=cw@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=martinwguy@gmail.com \
--cc=buildroot@uclibc.org \
--cc=crossgcc@sourceware.org \
--cc=raj.khem@gmail.com \
--cc=spdawson@gmail.com \
--cc=thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com \
--cc=yann.morin.1998@free.fr \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).