This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sourceware.cygnus.com mailing list for the crossgcc project.
See the CrossGCC FAQ for lots more infromation.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Michael Schwingen wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 11:06:49AM +0200, Kai Ruottu wrote: > > > > Here are my patches, derived from the Michael's patches. I changed the save rules to > > follow those now used in the H8/300 port, to handle also the '__attribute__ ((noreturn))' > > and non-leaf functions in ISRs. The stack-pointer may be handled with the available macro > > 'STACK_POINTER_REGNO (regno)' (I remember the name being this) if needed: > > Hm. At least I can reproduce the problem here with my original patch on > egcs-1.1b. Looking at the code, it seems that the entries for the registers > which may be modified by a subroutine call are not set in regs_ever_live, > however, the code that does this is in the generic gcc part, so unless you > patched that, I would guess that you are using a newer gcc and it was fixed > there? Yes, I moved the patches to gcc-2.95.2, probably manually first, anyhow they were quite logical. Also the mfc5307 patches stuff from David Fiddes were transferred... Hmmm... Is there some special reason to stay with egcs-1.1.x like smaller code, missing the new bugs etc. ? Something more serious than this small one, which shows that the 'libgcc.a' has some routine bigger now (the C-library and compiler options, '-O', were the same) : E:\usr\local\samples>size sort_m68k-coff* text data bss dec hex filename 376 4004 0 4380 111c sort_m68k-coff-e.o 23644 5936 28 29608 73a8 sort_m68k-coff-e.x 376 4004 0 4380 111c sort_m68k-coff.o 23660 5952 12 29624 73b8 sort_m68k-coff.x Those with the '-e' suffix are produced with egcs-1.1.2, those without it are with 2.95.2. At least the C++ 'features' should be better in gcc-2.95.2, but the code-size comparisons, not all this small, but looking at GCC binaries produced with egcs-1.1.2 or 2.95.x have kept me to stay with egcs-1.1.2 as the production engine while producing GCCs... But this may be an issue only in the x86-code, or not even there, building glibc-2.1.2 for Linux seemed to show that the resulted 'libc.so' with gcc-2.95.2 was smaller than with egcs-1.1.2... > I don't have much time currently, so this may take another month or so until > I get enough time to look at this (and try it on a current gcc). The derived patches have been sent, so others could judge them... I'm not joined to the 'Coldfire@WildRice'-something maillist, but perhaps the derived patches could be more suitable there... Cheers, Kai ------ Want more information? See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/ Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |