As already discussed, this patch removes the -mshort-calls command option from
avr-gcc.
Ok to apply?
If the change is on order, changes to wwwdocs will follow, i.e. deprecate the
option in 4.7 and tell it is removed in the 4.8 caveats.
Johann
* doc/invoke.texi (AVR Options): Remove -ms
2012/10/5 Georg-Johann Lay :
> As already discussed, this patch removes the -mshort-calls command option from
> avr-gcc.
>
> Ok to apply?
>
> If the change is on order, changes to wwwdocs will follow, i.e. deprecate the
> option in 4.7 and tell it is removed in the 4.8 caveats.
>
> Johann
>
>
>
As Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> As already discussed, this patch removes the -mshort-calls command
> option from avr-gcc.
> Ok to apply?
I'm more than happy with removing it.
--
cheers, J"org .-.-. --... ...-- -.. . DL8DTL
http://www.sax.de/~joerg/NIC: J
> -Original Message-
> From: Georg-Johann Lay []
> Sent: Friday, October 05, 2012 9:55 AM
> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: Denis Chertykov; Weddington, Eric; Joerg Wunsch
> Subject: [Patch,avr]: Remove -mshort-calls option
>
> As already discussed, this p
On Sun, 2012-10-07 at 18:01 +, Weddington, Eric wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Georg-Johann Lay []
> > Sent: Friday, October 05, 2012 9:55 AM
> > To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> > Cc: Denis Chertykov; Weddington, Eric; Joerg Wunsch
> &g
Oleg Endo wrote:
Weddington, Eric wrote:
Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
As already discussed, this patch removes the -mshort-calls command option
from avr-gcc.
Ok to apply?
Ok to apply, but...
If the change is on order, changes to wwwdocs will follow, i.e. deprecate
the option in 4.7 and tell it
On Sun, 2012-10-07 at 21:37 +0200, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> Oleg Endo wrote:
> > Maybe would be better to first make the option a no-op that prints a
> > warning in GCC, remove it from all documentations and mention the
> > deprecation in the wwwdocs changes. Then, in the next GCC release,
> > re
As Oleg Endo wrote:
> I think it's more user friendly to
> first warn and then do.
The problem is that this option would better not have existed straight
from the beginning. When using it, the compiler is at the risk of
generating code that fails to link later, because the relative calls
used co
Joerg Wunsch wrote:
As Oleg Endo wrote:
I think it's more user friendly to
first warn and then do.
The problem is that this option would better not have existed straight
from the beginning. When using it, the compiler is at the risk of
generating code that fails to link later, because the re
