Subject: Re: Changes to crunchgen
To: Martin Husemann <>
From: James Chacon <>
List: tech-ports
Date: 10/03/2001 18:04:58
Yes. That's why I made it an option for crunchgen now rather than having it
hard coded in the outputed binary (and just then making it overriden on the
command line). I generally prefer crunchgen to be able to generate a proper
makefile based on args rather than someone having to remember what to override
if they're debugging by hand for instance.


>> Out of curiosity, is -O2 vs. -Os really that much of a win under the
>> new toolchain? I remember looking at this a couple of years ago and
>> finding that the size benefit of -Os was quite small, as well as
>> architecture-dependent.
>And it even breaks some ports, e.g. sparc64.
>We need to make sure to pass an empty DBG there.