Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 08:09:22 +0200 (SAT) From: Robert Nordier <rnordier@nordier.com> To: jdp@polstra.com (John Polstra) Cc: bde@zeta.org.au, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: /sys/boot, egcs vs. gcc, -Os Message-ID: <199904080609.IAA26867@ceia.nordier.com> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.990407201753.jdp@polstra.com> from John Polstra at "Apr 7, 99 08:17:53 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Polstra wrote: > Bruce Evans wrote: > > > Everything should be buildable with CC=aac (any ANSI compiler), but > > that's asking too much for programs like kernels and boot blocks. > > The problem in this case is just that the compilers require > different command line options. It's asking _way_ too much to > require those to be identical. The main issue with supporting both gcc and egcs -- at least beyond the next few weeks -- is really that they have different optimization characteristics. Space is sufficiently tight in boot2 that it's often been necessary to refer to the emitted code, and move C statements around, or do things like change ints to chars, just to get everything to fit. So supporting anything other than egcs is likely to become much more than a makefile problem. Also for reasons of space, internal boot2 functions in assembly language require use of a non-standard calling convention (the called functions pop argument from the stack), so ability to use some arbitrary ISO compiler can't be guaranteed on principle, and is fairly unlikely in practice. -- Robert Nordier To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199904080609.IAA26867>