As Björn Haase wrote: > In fact, I don't think so. The planned change in the main function > (so that main() does no longer initialize the stack pointer) should > not be a problem, IIUC, since the stack pointer is already > initialized by the device-specific crt.?
Yes, it is, and I recently fixed a problem with GAS that made the external (link-time) override of __stack possible again, so now both initializations even agree. ;-) > One thing, however, that I think that we might want to change some > day is the __tmp_reg__,__zero_reg__ issue. I assume that the > original decision to use r0/r1 stems from times when there were no > hardware multipliers. That's my guess, too, and would be one thing I'd really see changed. > IMO it would be better to use r2:r3 instead so that one could, e.g., > avoid all of those "clr __zero_reg__" in the multiplication > operations. Btw., IAR (optionally) uses r15 as zero register, but doesn't have a specific alias for that (so assembly programmers will use literal r15). If we could agree on that, too, it would ease porting assembly source code between both compilers (albeit I think featuring their entire ABI is completely out of scope). But that's low priority. Would it make sense to have that on the schedule for GCC 5.x (plus avr-libc 2.x)? -- cheers, J"org .-.-. --... ...-- -.. . DL8DTL http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-) _______________________________________________ AVR-libc-dev mailing list AVR-libc-dev@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-libc-dev
