From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8878 invoked by alias); 24 May 2007 15:27:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 8821 invoked by uid 48); 24 May 2007 15:27:36 -0000 Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 15:27:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20070524152736.8820.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug middle-end/32044] udivdi3 counterproductive, unwarranted use In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "manu at gcc dot gnu dot org" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-05/txt/msg02164.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #14 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-24 16:27 ------- (In reply to comment #13) > > To sum up; as a user, and, in the UNIX spirit (I started with the 7th edition), > I just want freedom in choosing the facilities and features gcc has to offer. I > hope that this or similar flags provide me with the capability to banish libgcc > and similar facilities from my programs under the C free-standing > specification. > The flag just disables an optimisation. If you want to disable optimisations just use -O0. On the other hand, shouldn't -ffreestanding prevent udivdi3 ? What about -fno-builtin-udivdi3 ? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32044