From owner-freebsd-current Sun Jun 16 0:16:42 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mailman.zeta.org.au (mailman.zeta.org.au [203.26.10.16]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B568D37B40F; Sun, 16 Jun 2002 00:16:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bde.zeta.org.au (bde.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.102]) by mailman.zeta.org.au (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA07475; Sun, 16 Jun 2002 17:16:25 +1000 Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 17:21:03 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans X-X-Sender: bde@gamplex.bde.org To: Terry Lambert Cc: Maxime Henrion , Subject: Re: duplicate -ffreestanding in kernel build In-Reply-To: <3D0C22CB.A3DD0EA8@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20020616171444.N3623-100000@gamplex.bde.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sat, 15 Jun 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > Bruce Evans wrote: > printf( ); -> pusts( ); > > > > That is an incredibly *fugly* "optimization". It assumes that I > > > use libc, unless I have "-ffreestanding", and it assumes my > > > implementation of printf vs. puts. > > > > This is a routine optimization. It assumes that you use a C compiler > > (printf and even libc might not exist, since they might be builtins). > > A non-routine optimization might involve building hardware to run the > > application and emitting the 1 bit instruction to turn the hardware on. > > It's routine to assume that I'm going to use libc?!? No. It is routine to assume that users use a library that meets the compiler's requirements (the compiler gets to decide, not the users; it is only constrained by the relevant standards and historical (mal)practice). Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message