Re: Re[2]: [avr-gcc-list] Re: GCC-AVR Update (20082003)

[Denis Chertykov]

Joerg Wunsch <address@hidden> writes:

> As James Dabbs <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> >> IAR can optimize RCALL vs. CALL in situations where it's clear that
> >> an RCALL suffices, gcc currently can only use either of them.  (You
> >> can force it to use RCALL even on > 8 KB devices, but that's
> >> impractical.) This could perhaps also save a lot, where the
> >> relative saving is most notable on 16 KB devices.
> 
> >That's a nice feature.  Out of curiosity, what would it take to get
> >this into GCC?  Does the architecture allow this type of optimization
> >(at the linker level)?
> 
> Nope, at the linker level it's sheer impossible.  

It's wrong.
This feature can be done in linker, precisely in bfd level.
Such features called "relax".
Anybody welcome ! (I havn't a time and desire. I can help.)

Denis.