Re: A call to squease more bytes from `boot2'

1999-11-15 Thread Greg Lehey
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

Re: A call to squease more bytes from `boot2'

1999-11-14 Thread Dmitrij Tejblum
Try "-mpreferred-stack-boundary=2". Dima To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Re: A call to squease more bytes from `boot2'

1999-11-13 Thread David O'Brien
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

Re: A call to squease more bytes from `boot2'

1999-11-13 Thread Daniel C. Sobral
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 >

Re: A call to squease more bytes from `boot2'

1999-11-13 Thread Kris Kennaway
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

Re: A call to squease more bytes from `boot2'

1999-11-13 Thread David O'Brien
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

Re: A call to squease more bytes from `boot2'

1999-11-13 Thread Kris Kennaway
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

A call to squease more bytes from `boot2'

1999-11-13 Thread David O'Brien
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