> On 8. Jul 2017, at 00:16, amit mehta wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 10:02 PM, will sanfilippo wrote:
>> When I had looked at this before (a few years back) the ARM compiler beat
>> every other compiler (not surprisingly). And like Marko said, no
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 10:02 PM, will sanfilippo wrote:
> When I had looked at this before (a few years back) the ARM compiler beat
> every other compiler (not surprisingly). And like Marko said, no company I
> worked for wanted to pay for the compiler even though it did
3 years ago we performed some benchmarking comparing gcc against IAR for a
cortex M3 design and at that time the IAR outperformed gcc significantly both
in terms of code speed and size (so optimization).
If this still holds true is unknown to me and it would be interesting if
someone could do
I do not think there is any need to support other compilers (imho). Too much
extra support work and no really compelling reason that I can see. WIth that
said, doing some small things to increase compiler portability seems reasonable
(for example, macros for packed structures; things like
On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 06:41:12PM +0100, Jonathan Pallant wrote:
> Hi, I just wanted to jump in here and suggest that -std=c11 is a better
> choice than -std=gnuXX. If you allow GNU specific extensions then you
> might have issues using other compilers - certainly I would be surprised
> to see
Christopher Collins <ch...@runtime.io> wrote on 06-07-2017 17:11:24:
> From: Christopher Collins <ch...@runtime.io>
> To: dev@mynewt.apache.org
> Date: 06-07-2017 17:12
> Subject: Re: Why not use -std=gnu99?
>
> Hi Alfred,
>
> On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 04:
On Thu, Jul 6, 2017, at 11:07 AM, Alfred Schilken wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I installed the arm-none-eabi-gcc via brew as proposed in the 1.0.0
> mynewt documentation for Mac.
>
> So I have the version 4.9.3:
>
> arm-none-eabi-gcc --version
> arm-none-eabi-gcc (GNU Tools for ARM Embedded Processors)