Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 21:07:34 +0200 (CEST) From: Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai <asmodai@wxs.nl> To: "Andrey A. Chernov" <ache@nagual.pp.ru> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG, "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com> Subject: Re: /sys/boot, egcs vs. gcc, -Os Message-ID: <XFMail.990407210734.asmodai@wxs.nl> In-Reply-To: <19990407221941.A91075@nagual.pp.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 07-Apr-99 Andrey A. Chernov wrote: > The problem is deeper. When I reemove it, I got this error: > > -2100 bytes available tried with -O2 yet? > it seems that boot2 needs to be reduced, and I don't know why it becomes > that big and what can be reduced. First candidates are static cmd[512] > and kernel[1024]. Please fix so it can be still compiled with gcc. This raises an interesting point I think. Do we need to maintain gcc/egcs compatibility? Or do we, since we track CURRENT, say: "alas, that's progression for ye?" Has there been an `official' consensus reached about this from core or commiters? --- Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <http://www.freebsdzine.org>; asmodai(at)wxs.nl The idea does not replace the work... Network/Security Specialist <http://home.wxs.nl/~asmodai>; *BSD: Powered by Knowledge & Know-how <http://www.freebsd.org>; To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.990407210734.asmodai>