[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [avr-libc-dev] Question on Optimizations with Linking
From: |
Paul Schlie |
Subject: |
Re: [avr-libc-dev] Question on Optimizations with Linking |
Date: |
Wed, 23 Nov 2005 20:10:51 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.1.051004 |
> From: Russell Shaw <address@hidden>
> I had the idea that instead of having single large libraries such as
> stdio and libm, they could be made of say a dozen parts (even one per
> large function) with reduced or enhanced implementations of various
> functions, so rom spaced isn't filled with unused code. The default
> linking could use a standard stdio or libm. It might not be worth
> doing for things that are easily done in C by the user.
- yes, ideally unutilized code should be dead-striped; but doubt
fragmenting the libraries is a reasonable solution; as correspondingly
a basic level of standard function implementation is likely all that's
minimally necessary and typically desirable for an avr class machine
application (and ideally implemented in C themselves as the compiler
optimization for the target improves).
(as if one wants or expects more, a different processor is likely
a better choice)