On 05-Apr-99 Warner Losh wrote:
> In message <19990404232854.a5...@nuxi.com> "David O'Brien" writes:
>: Were you able to actually boot the bootblocks compiled with EGCS and -Os
>: ?
>: (I know the optimization gives us the space we need, but I'm not upto
>: testing new bootblocks at this moment)
>
In message <19990404232854.a5...@nuxi.com> "David O'Brien" writes:
: Were you able to actually boot the bootblocks compiled with EGCS and -Os ?
: (I know the optimization gives us the space we need, but I'm not upto
: testing new bootblocks at this moment)
To be honest, I didn't test them.
Warner
On 05-Apr-99 Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai wrote:
> On 05-Apr-99 David O'Brien wrote:
>>> Just wanted to let people know that the unmodified boot blocks have
>>> 144 bytes free if you compile them -Os and -16 free if you compile
>>> them -O2.
>>
>> Were you able to actually boot the bootblocks compiled
On 05-Apr-99 David O'Brien wrote:
>> Just wanted to let people know that the unmodified boot blocks have
>> 144 bytes free if you compile them -Os and -16 free if you compile
>> them -O2.
>
> Were you able to actually boot the bootblocks compiled with EGCS and -Os ?
> (I know the optimization gi
In article <199904050513.xaa69...@harmony.village.org>,
Warner Losh wrote:
> -fno-exceptions didn't seem to impact things at all, nor
> did -fno-sjlj-exceptions. At least in terms of size.
That's because the default for C programs is -fno-exceptions. That
option still should be added to the M
> Just wanted to let people know that the unmodified boot blocks have
> 144 bytes free if you compile them -Os and -16 free if you compile
> them -O2.
Were you able to actually boot the bootblocks compiled with EGCS and -Os ?
(I know the optimization gives us the space we need, but I'm not upto
