From: pavenis AT lanet DOT lv
Message-ID: <B0000097299@stargate.astr.lu.lv>
To: Laszlo Molnar <laszlo DOT molnar AT eth DOT ericsson DOT se>
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 19:40:57 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: gcc-2.95
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <19990805162037.D17612@crater.eth.ericsson.se>
References: <B0000097259 AT stargate DOT astr DOT lu DOT lv>; from pavenis AT lanet DOT lv on Thu, Aug 05, 1999 at 01:37:45PM +0300
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.11)
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

On 5 Aug 99, at 16:20, Laszlo Molnar wrote:

> Hi Andris!
> 
> Isn't the bug with -fvtable-thunks fixed yet? If it is, I think it
> would be a good idea to include this switch in the djgpp port. 

It's not tested with DJGPP at all AFAIK. Therefore I think we are 
not ready to include it now. Maybe for 3.0

> Another
> idea: maybe you could change the default 8 byte aligment of the stack
> to 4 when building gcc (if you build it with 2.95). It would make the
> executable somewhat smaller (and maybe faster? - not sure, just an
> idea).
> 

Perhaps it's best to stay with defaults for i[34567]86 for release of 
DJGPP port. All similar changes should be carefully tested and 
most discussions in latest time were about using even 16 bytes 
alignment. But all such optimizations are common for all 
i[34567]86 targets and doing them especially for DJGPP would
duplicate the same efforts (and I'm not sure we'll do it better)

Andris