Re: Two or three stages gcc build?

[Martin Guy <martinwguy at gmail dot com>]

On 07/09/2013, Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> That said, even gcc 4.4 is relatively "old" by these days standards, so
> I am not sure it would make a huge difference compared to keeping the
> existing gcc 4.2.

Huge, no, if you mean in code size and speed. Just a few percent which
made the product fit into 128KB flash instead of overflowing it.
However it (and Atmel 4.3.2, which is also based on gcc-4.4) generates
correct code in at least one case where the older toolchain generated
wrong code, which, for the customer in question, made the difference
between a working executable and one that crashed at random.

Unsupported targets like AVR32 and my MaverickCrunch FPU stuff stop at
gcc-4.4 because of upheavals in the code-generator structure of GCC
between gcc-4.4 and 4.5, which makes forward-porting patches not as
simple as it was from 4.1 and 4.4, and because no one cares enough
about them to fund the work.

    M

--
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq