 | | 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: GCC vs. IAR compiler: Could GCC be tweaked to generate code as tight as IAR?
|
|
(...) Are you adjusting these values in d_loader.h? #define STARTOFFILETABLE (0x13FF00L) #define STARTOFUSERFLASH (0x11F000L) #define SIZEOFUSERFLASH (STARTOFFILETABLE - STARTOFUSERFLASH) I've been told by folks at LEGO that if I grow the size of (...) (19 years ago, 14-Mar-07, to lugnet.robotics.nxt.nxthacking)
|
| |
| | GCC vs. IAR compiler: Could GCC be tweaked to generate code as tight as IAR?
|
|
Hi, If I compile the LEGO firmware sources with gcc, the code size increases much beyond the 128 KB (which I think) the IAR compiled sources fits into. That means that one have to relocate part of the compiled code into the memory areas between (...) (19 years ago, 14-Mar-07, to lugnet.robotics.nxt.nxthacking)
|
| |
| | Purpose of the group
|
|
Hi NXT hackers[1], The purpose of this lugnet.robotics.nxt.nxthacking forum is to promote fun, educational, and lively discussions in a positive and supportive manner for both hardcore and not so hardcore embedded systems specialists. The background (...) (19 years ago, 14-Mar-07, to lugnet.robotics.nxt.nxthacking)
|
