Bruce Evans wrote:
> > It's routine to assume that I'm going to use libc?!?
>
> No. It is routine to assume that users use a library that meets the
> compiler's requirements (the compiler gets to decide, not the users;
> it is only constrained by the relevant standards and historical
> (mal)prac
On Sat, 15 Jun 2002, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Bruce Evans wrote:
> printf( ); -> pusts( );
>
> > > That is an incredibly *fugly* "optimization". It assumes that I
> > > use libc, unless I have "-ffreestanding", and it assumes my
> > > implementation of printf vs. puts.
> >
> > This is a routine op
Bruce Evans wrote:
printf( ); -> pusts( );
> > That is an incredibly *fugly* "optimization". It assumes that I
> > use libc, unless I have "-ffreestanding", and it assumes my
> > implementation of printf vs. puts.
>
> This is a routine optimization. It assumes that you use a C compiler
> (prin
On Sat, 15 Jun 2002, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Maxime Henrion wrote:
> > Terry Lambert wrote:
> > > What exactly does this do, besides implying "-fno-builtin"?
> > >
> > > The documentation says "and implies main has no special requirements"...
> > >
> > > Neither the kernel nor modules have a "main
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Lambert)
> Date: Sat 15 Jun, 2002
> Subject: Re: duplicate -ffreestanding in kernel build
> That is an incredibly *fugly* "optimization". It assumes that I
> use libc, unless I have "-ffreestanding", and it assumes my
>
< said:
> IIRC, -ffreestanding prevented GCC3 from being stupid optimizations like
`-ffreestanding' tells the compiler that it is to operate as a
free-standing implementation (in the words of the C standard); i.e.,
that there is no Standard C Library, and the compiler may not assume
that a funct
Maxime Henrion wrote:
> Terry Lambert wrote:
> > What exactly does this do, besides implying "-fno-builtin"?
> >
> > The documentation says "and implies main has no special requirements"...
> >
> > Neither the kernel nor modules have a "main", so the only thing that's
> > relevent here is the "-fn
Terry Lambert wrote:
> What exactly does this do, besides implying "-fno-builtin"?
>
> The documentation says "and implies main has no special requirements"...
>
> Neither the kernel nor modules have a "main", so the only thing that's
> relevent here is the "-fno-builtin", right?
IIRC, -ffreest
Bruce Evans wrote:
> This is a bug in bsd.kern.mk. -ffreestanding never belonged there, since
> it is also needed for modules and perhaps for boot programs and libstand.
> Module makefiles still include , but Makefiles for boot
> programs have regressed.
>
> Your x86 box must be out of date. x8
On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Maxime Henrion wrote:
> I recently noticed that we are adding the -ffreestanding flag twice for
> kernel builds. It's added once if GCC3 is defined in
> /usr/share/mk/bsd.kern.mk and another time inconditionally in
> /sys/conf/kern.pre.mk. As a result, I have -ffreestanding
Hi all,
I recently noticed that we are adding the -ffreestanding flag twice for
kernel builds. It's added once if GCC3 is defined in
/usr/share/mk/bsd.kern.mk and another time inconditionally in
/sys/conf/kern.pre.mk. As a result, I have -ffreestanding once on my
x86 box still running
11 matches
Mail list logo
