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 majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
