From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 745 invoked by alias); 17 Jan 2012 16:45:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 718 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Jan 2012 16:45:07 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from tirion.supremecenter202.com (HELO tirion.supremecenter202.com) (209.25.195.243) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:44:54 +0000 Received: from c-32d8e155.355-1-64736c10.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se ([85.225.216.50]:54501 helo=[192.168.0.120]) by tirion.supremecenter202.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RnC9T-0005GD-Tv for ecos-devel@ecos.sourceware.org; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:44:52 +0000 Message-ID: <4F15A57E.3090608@siva.com.mk> Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:45:00 -0000 From: Ilija Kocho User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111220 Thunderbird/9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ecos-devel@ecos.sourceware.org Subject: Re: Gnutools: consideration for upgrade to GCC 4.6 References: <4F106345.4080902@siva.com.mk> <4F15412B.9040601@r-finger.com> <4F159D3C.1060108@meduna.org> In-Reply-To: <4F159D3C.1060108@meduna.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact ecos-devel-help@ecos.sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-devel-owner@ecos.sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-01/txt/msg00030.txt.bz2 On 17.01.2012 17:09, Stanislav Meduna wrote: > On 17.01.2012 10:36, Tomas Frydrych wrote: > >> Some of the more recent gccs were not producing usable binaries on some >> platforms (including arm) with the -Os option. I do not know if this is >> the case with 4.6.2, and I don't think ecos uses -Os by default, but it >> is probably worth checking whether this works (and at least documenting >> somewhere if it does not). > Do you happen to have more details on this - versions, flags used, > example to reproduce...? > > http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Optimize-Options.html says > > -Os enables all -O2 optimizations that do not typically increase > code size. It also performs further optimizations designed > to reduce code size. > > it would be good to know whether the problems come from -O2 (which > would be a major problem) or from these further optimizations. I am compiling with default eCos options (that include -O2). Haven't noticed a problems so far. Ilija