Re: [ECOS] Usefulness of CYGFUN_INFRA_EMPTY_DELETE_FUNCTIONS

[Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>]

On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 01:29:12PM -0500, Christopher Cordahi wrote:
> Hi group,
> 
> I'm wondering about the actual usefulness of the
> CYGFUN_INFRA_EMPTY_DELETE_FUNCTIONS cdl option.
> 
> If you use new which calls malloc, then you
> also have free linked in even if you never call it.

That should be wrong. If you don't use something, the linker does not
include it. If you are seeing free included but not used find out why?
Get a linker cross reference and find out where it is being referenced
from. If you really find it is included but without a reference your
linker might be broken and producing bloated binaries.

> This option with its default setting saves a few bytes of memory
> at the expense of the C++ delete operator not working.

Generally, if somebody is wanting to write small code, they use C and
avoid C++. So to me, this is the right way around. I'm typically using
a system with 64Kbytes of RAM and 256Kbytes of FLASH. Every byte
counts and i avoid C++ like the plague.

> If this option is to be preserved, I would think that empty
> delete functions should be a user optimization not
> an unexpected default.

You are taking the wrong tone here. "is to be preserved" makes it
sound like you have already decided to take it out and are letting
people argue it should be kept. In fact it is the other way
around. You need to convince us that the default value should be
changed and that the bloat added by changing the default really is
insignificant to all users. 

              Andrew

-- 
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss