 | | Re: GCC vs. IAR compiler: Could GCC be tweaked to generate code as tight as IAR?
|
|
(...) OK. This is good info!!! It is hard to guess that this was the way to do it. It also makes some sense for LEGO to use their file manager to do this rather than having a second tool replicate a filemanager on the host and insert it at compile (...) (17 years ago, 15-Mar-07, to lugnet.robotics.nxt.nxthacking)
|
| |
| | Re: GCC vs. IAR compiler: Could GCC be tweaked to generate code as tight as IAR?
|
|
(...) Hi Dick Swan, That is a nice flexible way of doing it. I will see if I can figure it out in gcc. Thanks for the idea. (...) Well...I have -=Os on, which are all size reducing features. The actual "problem" can also be this packed stuff that we (...) (17 years ago, 15-Mar-07, to lugnet.robotics.nxt.nxthacking)
|
| |
| | Re: GCC vs. IAR compiler: Could GCC be tweaked to generate code as tight as IAR?
|
|
(...) LEGO is using a slightly older version of IAR Embedded Workbench. Maybe that explains it. Or maybe its a 1.03 vs 1.04 source code difference. (...) I have been told that the following is the standard operating procedure for generating the (...) (17 years ago, 15-Mar-07, to lugnet.robotics.nxt.nxthacking)
|
| |
| | Re: GCC vs. IAR compiler: Could GCC be tweaked to generate code as tight as IAR?
|
|
Regarrding overwriting the flash system. I encountered the problem of flash file system overwriting user code as well. It's because it is hard coded in the code the starting address of the file system. There's a constant named "STARTOFUSERFLASH" (...) (17 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 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 (...) (17 years ago, 14-Mar-07, to lugnet.robotics.nxt.nxthacking)
|
