"H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]> writes:
> Etienne Lorrain wrote:
>> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>> I've long wished that someone would do a proper 16-bit x86 port of gcc;
>>
>>> however, the .code16gcc is usually good enough, although it produces code
>>> which is a lot bigger than it needs to be.
>>
>> It is only that much bigger if you compare to 16 bits integer compilers,
>> but once you deal with 32 bits integers in real mode you have one extra byte
>> out of the two - which is still better than dealing with dx:ax.
>>
>> Last time I compiled (long time ago) some piece of code with and without
>> .code16gcc it was approx 15% bigger - approx what you get when optimising.
>>
>
> That's not a valid comparison, because you're using 32-bit registers to hold
> 16-bit pointers, and then sticking 67 prefixes on completely unnecessarily.
Regardless if the size is good enough we can use it :)
For romcc I had a 3x code bloat over had crafted assembler, because I
had no memory and had to inline every single function call because I
didn't have someplace to put a return register. So I have the
scenario with the most code bloat. I win!
Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]