Re: [Tinyos-devel] RE: [avr-gcc-list] Fwd: [Tinyos-help] TinyOs avr-gcc-4

[David Gay]

On 10/15/07, Philip Levis <address@hidden> wrote:
> IIRC, the reason we haven't moved to avr-gcc v4 has to do with its
> interpretation of optimization parameters. Kevin looked a bit into
> this and found that -Os leads to huge code bloat, but that -O3 leads
> to similar results as is observed with -Os in 3.2/3.4. There was
> definitely talk of moving to avr-gcc 4 for the 2.1 release. But

W/o getting into the whole nesC-vs-C discussion, this optimisation
issue is not a problem, it's just a question of passing the right
options to gcc 4. See the -param max-inline-insns option in my
original answer(s). This needs nesC 1.2.9 to get the option through
from the TinyOS makefiles all the way down to gcc...

We should probably switch to standard avr tools for 2.1.

David