 | | Re: GCC vs. IAR compiler: Could GCC be tweaked to generate code as tight as IAR?
|
|
... (...) I have not done that. Well, just a little bit:-). The best one (not surprisingly) is the "-Os" optimization, which does this "Optimize for size. -Os enables all -O2 optimizations that do not typically increase code size." (...) I tried (...) (19 years ago, 14-Mar-07, to lugnet.robotics.nxt.nxthacking)
|
| |
| | Re: GCC vs. IAR compiler: Could GCC be tweaked to generate code as tight as IAR?
|
|
(...) I did not do so. The memory map in LEGO_MINDSTORMS_NXT_..._v1.03.bin is like this for the files: 0x11F000-0x12E99D Actual files like Demo.rxe 0x13FF00-0x13FF37 FILE_HANDLE(s) 0x13FFFC-0c13FFFF FILEVERSION The nxtgcc stuff compiles to 126176 (...) (19 years ago, 14-Mar-07, to lugnet.robotics.nxt.nxthacking)
|
| |
| | Re: GCC vs. IAR compiler: Could GCC be tweaked to generate code as tight as IAR?
|
|
(...) Have you experimented at all with the compiler optimisation flags? I don't know if all of them are supported for the ARM architecture, and some options cause problems on other architectures, but there's a bit of a list here: (URL) removing (...) (19 years ago, 14-Mar-07, to lugnet.robotics.nxt.nxthacking)
|
| |
| | Re: GCC vs. IAR compiler: Could GCC be tweaked to generate code as tight as IAR?
|
|
(...) More precisely, I was told to increase the STARTOFUSERFLASH value if I increased the firmware size beyond the current value. The unmodified source code compiles to 121324 bytes using the current evaluation version of the IAR Embedded Workbench (...) (19 years ago, 14-Mar-07, to lugnet.robotics.nxt.nxthacking)
|
| |
| | Re: My first(ish) program
|
|
(...) (URL) that I think you need to buy any more LEGO or anything... 8?) ROSCO (19 years ago, 14-Mar-07, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, lugnet.robotics.nxt)
|
