On Saturday, 13 November 1999 at 15:28:38 -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Once again, `boot2' is the only thing holding us back from upgrading our
> base compiler. The commit below plus -fdata-sections gets us to needing
> to reduce another 100 bytes from `boot2'.
>
> This is an appea
Try "-mpreferred-stack-boundary=2".
Dima
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
On Sun, Nov 14, 1999 at 04:48:33PM +0900, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
> I'd rather find out _why_ the new compiler generates a bigger
> object.
Be my guest, but I don't have time for it. Gcc 2.95.2 has as many
backend changes as we have kernel changes from 3.x to 4.0. Thus it is no
surprise that th
David O'Brien wrote:
>
> Once again, `boot2' is the only thing holding us back from upgrading our
> base compiler. The commit below plus -fdata-sections gets us to needing
> to reduce another 100 bytes from `boot2'.
>
> This is an appeal to hackers to squeeze another 100 bytes out. It would
>
On Sat, 13 Nov 1999, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 13, 1999 at 04:23:42PM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > Do you have any idea why the new compiler is generating so much more code
> > than the old?
>
> Nope. I can post the "-S" output if you like. But the EGCS vs. GCC
> versions are quit
On Sat, Nov 13, 1999 at 04:23:42PM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> Do you have any idea why the new compiler is generating so much more code
> than the old?
Nope. I can post the "-S" output if you like. But the EGCS vs. GCC
versions are quite different. There were many changes to the back end
b
On Sat, 13 Nov 1999, David O'Brien wrote:
> This is an appeal to hackers to squeeze another 100 bytes out. It would
> be preferable to use the ``egcs'' port as the compiler, but I presume
> using the current system compiler would be OK too.
Do you have any idea why the new compiler is generatin
Hi folks,
Once again, `boot2' is the only thing holding us back from upgrading our
base compiler. The commit below plus -fdata-sections gets us to needing
to reduce another 100 bytes from `boot2'.
This is an appeal to hackers to squeeze another 100 bytes out. It would
be preferable to use the