gcc. windows dev kit, binary size & the whole ordeal (discussion here) - page 2 - CHDK Releases - CHDK Forum
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Down

gcc. windows dev kit, binary size & the whole ordeal (discussion here)

  • 48 Replies
  • 37989 Views
*

Offline whim

  • ******
  • 2046
  • A495/590/620/630 ixus70/115/220/230/300/870 S95
Re: gcc. windows dev kit, binary size & the whole ordeal (discussion here)
« Reply #10 on: 27 / October / 2008, 04:38:44 »
Advertisements
Quote
...Sounds not so good...

well at least it checks language inconsistencies better...
and switching to gcc 4.x would make it possible to run CHDK Shell on Vista,
which is what most windows users get their boxes with (unfortunately)

wim

PS about e3pc, know what you mean... got a Medion Akoya = MSI Wind.
     my old 1.8 GHz Turion single core beats the sh*t out of it though

PS2 (sorry, doubledutch to most of you)
      in verband met CHDK Shell heb ik een vraag -- zou het mogelijk zijn op je drop.io
      de devkit (22 Mb) te plaatsen ? Ik heb het behoorlijk gehad met xxxShare diensten.
      Andere suggesties voor plaatsen die niet iedere release moeten worden gewijzigd
      zijn natuurlijk ook welkom. De shell en CT kan ik ook op mariusz' http://savedonthe.net/
      kwijt, maar de kit is te groot  :(
« Last Edit: 27 / October / 2008, 05:06:02 by whim »
Logged
*

Offline fe50

  • ******
  • 3147
  • IXUS50 & 860, SX10 Star WARs-Star RAWs
    • fe50
Re: gcc. windows dev kit, binary size & the whole ordeal (discussion here)
« Reply #11 on: 27 / October / 2008, 06:12:45 »
« Last Edit: 27 / October / 2008, 06:26:09 by fe50 »
Logged
*

Offline PhyrePhoX

  • *****
  • 2254
  • make RAW not WAR
    • PhyreWorX
Re: gcc. windows dev kit, binary size & the whole ordeal (discussion here)
« Reply #12 on: 27 / October / 2008, 06:17:02 »
well, you can also switch your application to sourceforge, not?
Logged
*

Offline Hacki

  • ****
  • 359
  • EOS 80D
Re: gcc. windows dev kit, binary size & the whole ordeal (discussion here)
« Reply #13 on: 27 / October / 2008, 06:35:51 »
Compiling CHDK for the S3:

gcc 4.3.2:
Code: [Select]
   text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
228055    8764   68716 305535   4a97f main.elf

real 0m28.030s
user 0m21.419s
sys 0m1.641s

gcc 3.4.6:
Code: [Select]
   text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
 229284   13720   68852 311856   4c230 main.elf

real 0m23.161s
user 0m14.334s
sys 0m1.420s

-> It generates smaller binarys and is a bit slower


I'd love to compile the sx100 version with the new gcc, test if everything works, see if its a bit faster.. But it wont compile:

Code: [Select]
>> Entering to platform/sx100is/sub
>> Entering to platform/sx100is/sub/100c
boot.c -> boot.o
/tmp/ccsXyUYU.s: Assembler messages:
/tmp/ccsXyUYU.s:58: Error: invalid literal constant: pool needs to be closer
/tmp/ccsXyUYU.s:60: Error: invalid literal constant: pool needs to be closer
/tmp/ccsXyUYU.s:66: Error: invalid literal constant: pool needs to be closer
/tmp/ccsXyUYU.s:68: Error: invalid literal constant: pool needs to be closer
/tmp/ccsXyUYU.s:80: Error: invalid literal constant: pool needs to be closer
/tmp/ccsXyUYU.s:81: Error: invalid literal constant: pool needs to be closer
/tmp/ccsXyUYU.s:107: Error: invalid literal constant: pool needs to be closer
/tmp/ccsXyUYU.s:109: Error: invalid literal constant: pool needs to be closer
/tmp/ccsXyUYU.s:110: Error: invalid literal constant: pool needs to be closer
/tmp/ccsXyUYU.s:120: Error: invalid literal constant: pool needs to be closer
/tmp/ccsXyUYU.s:138: Error: invalid literal constant: pool needs to be closer
/tmp/ccsXyUYU.s:160: Error: invalid literal constant: pool needs to be closer
/tmp/ccsXyUYU.s:164: Error: invalid literal constant: pool needs to be closer
/tmp/ccsXyUYU.s:166: Error: invalid literal constant: pool needs to be closer
/tmp/ccsXyUYU.s:169: Error: invalid literal constant: pool needs to be closer
/tmp/ccsXyUYU.s:171: Error: invalid literal constant: pool needs to be closer
/tmp/ccsXyUYU.s:174: Error: invalid literal constant: pool needs to be closer
/tmp/ccsXyUYU.s:178: Error: invalid literal constant: pool needs to be closer
/tmp/ccsXyUYU.s:182: Error: invalid literal constant: pool needs to be closer
/tmp/ccsXyUYU.s:201: Error: invalid literal constant: pool needs to be closer
make[4]: *** [boot.o] Error 1

No idea what that means. I found this thread where someone had the same error, but its not much of a help..


Logged
*

Offline whim

  • ******
  • 2046
  • A495/590/620/630 ixus70/115/220/230/300/870 S95
Re: gcc. windows dev kit, binary size & the whole ordeal (discussion here)
« Reply #14 on: 27 / October / 2008, 07:27:27 »
« Last Edit: 27 / October / 2008, 07:49:58 by whim »
Logged
*

Offline Hacki

  • ****
  • 359
  • EOS 80D
Re: gcc. windows dev kit, binary size & the whole ordeal (discussion here)
« Reply #15 on: 27 / October / 2008, 08:24:33 »
Interesting. Compiles, boots, binary is 6kb smaller (my own version of chdk again..). With that cflag the hex-size reported by arm-elf-size actually increases a bit.

The benchmark in the debug menu seems to be broken. Reading the memory and the screen doesnt show a value, just "Calculating.."

Apart from that, everything seems to be working normally..
Logged
*

Offline whim

  • ******
  • 2046
  • A495/590/620/630 ixus70/115/220/230/300/870 S95
Re: gcc. windows dev kit, binary size & the whole ordeal (discussion here)
« Reply #16 on: 27 / October / 2008, 08:35:27 »
we should probably ask ewavr to shine a light on this ...
in the forum link you mentioned a more 'local' solution with .ltorg is used, that might well
prevent both the error and the code size increase ...

wim
Logged
*

Offline PhyrePhoX

  • *****
  • 2254
  • make RAW not WAR
    • PhyreWorX
Re: gcc. windows dev kit, binary size & the whole ordeal (discussion here)
« Reply #17 on: 27 / October / 2008, 08:46:40 »
hm, about time we implement some sort of Unit testing
maybe this will help :)
Logged
*

Offline Hacki

  • ****
  • 359
  • EOS 80D
Re: gcc. windows dev kit, binary size & the whole ordeal (discussion here)
« Reply #18 on: 27 / October / 2008, 10:30:58 »
BTW:

Adding a ".ltorg\n" to platform/sx100is/sub/100c/boot.c in line 235 makes it compile and run without the -ffunction-sections flag.

Logged
*

Offline whim

  • ******
  • 2046
  • A495/590/620/630 ixus70/115/220/230/300/870 S95
Re: gcc. windows dev kit, binary size & the whole ordeal (discussion here)
« Reply #19 on: 27 / October / 2008, 10:35:42 »
good news ... i'll compile for all cams to see if any others are affected

wim

edit: more good news: SX100IS is the only cam affected, both versions though ( trunk544 )
« Last Edit: 27 / October / 2008, 11:19:40 by whim »
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Up
« previous next »
 

Related Topics