Eric Weddington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Also, as you mention the target code has a chance to tune this ..., can you > give me a hint about > where to look for these knobs? I might give it a try to see whether I > can find a more optimal set of parameters." > > This was in response to your comment in #4. Do you have any concrete > suggestions?
Define OPTIMIZATION_OPTIONS in the CPU.h file. See the internal documentation, and examples in many backends. > > when perhaps they should > > also notice that the efficiency of GCC for -Os has increased > > tremendously in the past few years... > > That is what you think is important. To AVR users, compile time could > increase by 100% and they wouldn't care, but they do care when there is a > compiled code size regression of even 1%. Yes, part of it is the > responsibility of the port, but there are other target-independent portions > that affect this too. It would be nice if GCC could try to take all users > into consideration. If the code size increases for AVR, when using -Os, when comparing an older release to mainline or 4.2 branch, you should report that as a regression in bugzilla. Thanks. Ian
