Bruce Evans wrote: printf( <const string>); -> pusts( <const string>);
> > 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 > (printf and even libc might not exist, since they might be builtins). > A non-routine optimization might involve building hardware to run the > application and emitting the 1 bit instruction to turn the hardware on. It's routine to assume that I'm going to use libc?!? I understand the -fnobuiltins thing... particularly if the compiler generates code that makes a function call, instead of generating the code inline, and saving the call/return (kind of makes you want -fnobuiltins by default, though, since "I'm smarter than the compiler writers" is a common base assumption). I *really* don't understand them making assumptions about the instrumentation that I may or may not have put between myself and the libc implementations of functions, though. Historically, for code portability, I used to carry around my own printf(), and I didn't even have a puts(); this "optimization" would *really* break things. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
