On Friday 01 January 2010 11:29:41 Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Mike Frysinger vapier@gentoo.org wrote on 01/01/2010 07:18:44:
yes, but that doesnt mean gcc takes care of inlining all of printf_puts() into the puts() and all the new call sites go to puts()
Sure, gcc might not inline the current code in this case. I guess you don't want the extra size this would incur or is there some else you are concerned about?
the extra size
i dont have any plans on wanting this, and it seems pretty invasive ... and easy to introduce new code that breaks PIC people but no one else really notices ...
Yes, it is a bit invasive hence the question if this is acceptable to u-boot. I have been looking for other ways to do this but there isn't one sans modifying gcc. You are sort of an gcc guy, what do you think the odds are that gcc would add a few new options mainly useful for smaller embedded progs like u-boot (and possible the kernel too)?
i'm not really a gcc guy ... i just sometimes fake it. i honestly dont have an idea here how they would respond. -mike