[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [MiNT] [Mint-cvs] [FreeMiNT CVS] freemint/sys/sockets/inet4
On Fri, 2010-01-01 at 23:44 +0100, Odd Skancke wrote:
> Den 01.01.2010 23:05, skrev Jo Even Skarstein:
> > Mark Duckworth wrote:
> >> Ok, I am able to get maximum free memory on 14mb falcon afer mint of
> >> 11,176K. A make distclean runs out of memory even. So there is no way
> >> to build freemint on a stock falcon with gcc 2.95.3 even.
> > I don't remember the details, but under certain circumstances I ran out
> > of memory on my 32Mb Afterburner while building MiNT with 2.95. So I'm
> > not surprised that it doesn't work on a 14Mb Falcon.
> > Anyway, gcc is so slow that it's not practically usable on a plain
> > Falcon. Why are we using this compiler? Because of the lack of alternatives?
> Well. I think we've got alternatives, but those alternatives is a dead
> end imo. On the other hand, GCC have become too heavy for our hardware
> to manage. So, to me it looks like we're in a "chicken and egg"
> situation. For me, the alternatives are no option, as i feel that the
> only chance we have of ever getting FreeMiNT/XaAES to run on other
> hardware is to stick with GCC. I accept the fact that I can never build
> the kernel on a 16-meg TT/Falcon. I can, however, do that on my 512Meg
> CT60, or cross-compile on my Fedora-Linux PC. That is a tradeoff I can
> live with, as long as it gives me some sort of reassurance that GCC will
> make it easier to get onto other hardware.
> The best way would, ofcorse, be to have our sources compile on both
> the alternative compilers and GCC. But, as I have stated before, I do
> not have time to maintain source-compatibility with other compilers than
> with the compiler of my choise.
> What do we do about this situation? I dont know. I know that I am not
> interested in, or have time to, installing several compilers in order to
> maintain compatibility. My main developmentenvironment is GCC 4.4.2/KDE
> on Fedora. On this beast, it takes 16 seconds to build the kernel from
> distclean. I dont want to loose that luxury :)
> One solution could be we branch off the CVS, one for sources that will
> build on the native alternative compilers and one for GCC sources. With
> this solution, persons not interested in finding a way to use GCC can
> get together and back-port stuff from GCC and vice versa. Since I think
> persons wanting to stick with native compilers wont be using GCC, and
> vice versa, it will be very difficult keeping this under control via
> #ifdefs within a single source tree. And I hate these kinds of #ifdefs :-)
Certainly agree here. There's no need to burden ourselves with trying to
build the code on a 16MB machine, we have other available hardware to do
so. Let's stick with GCC.