On Tuesday 12 May 2009 00:39:24 Stefan Roese wrote:
On Monday 11 May 2009 19:59:10 Wolfgang Denk wrote:
really wish there was a define to control this. large devices are fine, but it sucks when majority of people dont hit this limit.
What is the drawback of this code version? I have to admit that I didn't compare code size, but this is the only possible drawback coming to my mind.
Can you please make such a comparison? I, too, would like to know how much of a difference that makes - I share Mike's concerns.
OK, here we go:
Canyonlands (using NAND) without this patch:
text data bss dec hex filename 339324 20044 336384 695752 a9dc8 ./u-boot
and with this patch:
text data bss dec hex filename 339796 20044 336384 696224 a9fa0 ./u-boot
So it's 472 bytes on this platform.
doesnt sound like it's worth the hassle to me. thanks for testing a bit. -mike