Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 17:21:03 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Maxime Henrion <mux@FreeBSD.ORG>, <current@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: duplicate -ffreestanding in kernel build Message-ID: <20020616171444.N3623-100000@gamplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <3D0C22CB.A3DD0EA8@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 15 Jun 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > Bruce Evans wrote: > printf( <const string>); -> pusts( <const string>); > > > > 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020616171444.N3623-100000>