This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sourceware.org mailing list for the crossgcc project.
See crosstool-NG for lots more information.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On 07/09/2013, Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> wrote: > That said, even gcc 4.4 is relatively "old" by these days standards, so > I am not sure it would make a huge difference compared to keeping the > existing gcc 4.2. Huge, no, if you mean in code size and speed. Just a few percent which made the product fit into 128KB flash instead of overflowing it. However it (and Atmel 4.3.2, which is also based on gcc-4.4) generates correct code in at least one case where the older toolchain generated wrong code, which, for the customer in question, made the difference between a working executable and one that crashed at random. Unsupported targets like AVR32 and my MaverickCrunch FPU stuff stop at gcc-4.4 because of upheavals in the code-generator structure of GCC between gcc-4.4 and 4.5, which makes forward-porting patches not as simple as it was from 4.1 and 4.4, and because no one cares enough about them to fund the work. M -- For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |