> -----Original Message----- > From: > [email protected] > [mailto:avr-gcc-list-bounces+eweddington=cso.atmel....@nongnu. > org] On Behalf Of David Brown > Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 4:11 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [avr-gcc-list] Re: Code optimistaion in AVR Tiny13 > > Weddington, Eric wrote: > > We can always hope that the people working on gcc link time > optimisation > eventual get something working - that will make -fwhole-program and > -combine fairly redundant. It seems that LTO *is* of interest to > companies like Google and the other "big players".
True, Google is working on LTO, but their focus is on *extremely* large applications and to make them smaller. So, while I like to be optimistic about the future of LTO, I'm reserving judgement until I see it actually working, and see how it works on an AVR application. But that's the other main problem: LTO is on a branch and is not ready for prime-time yet (but it's getting closer), whereas -fwhole-program exists now. > Would it help if people tell Atmel that we consider avr-gcc to be a > selling point of the AVR's? I'm pretty sure that Atmel already knows that. > I used to prefer the msp430 > devices because > of their good gcc support (they are a far easier fit for gcc than the > AVR), but msp430-gcc has stagnated at about gcc 3.2, and avr-gcc (and > the library) are now far beyond the msp430 port. This is > definitely one > of the reasons we now buy more AVR's and far fewer msp430 devices. This is good to know! Thanks! :-) > Is there much cooperation between the avr-gcc development and the > avr32-gcc development? There hasn't been much in the past, but that will change significantly in the near future. _______________________________________________ AVR-GCC-list mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-gcc-list
