Re: [avr-libc-dev] Definition of putchar/getchar causes code growth

[Dave N6NZ]

Bernard Fouché wrote:
> IMHO the 'stock' distribution of avr-gcc/avr-libc should be tuned to 
> give results as good (hence small) as possible with -Os since most of 
> the traffic in the mailing lists seems code size oriented, so I have a 
> point of view similar to Wouter.

I'm with you on this one, and agree with your argument.  -Os is the 
"common watering hole", so the libraries should bias that way also.

> Or have link options like '-lprintf_min' for features that would be 
> compiled in different ways to meet the user goals.

This one make me squinty-eyed. In a former life I managed a group 
responsible for product validation of a commercial C/C++ compiler, so 
from that experience certain concepts wake me up from the deepest nap.

Every compilation switch multiplies the size of the test space. Now of 
course there are times when it makes sense to add compilation switches 
-- like floating point support in printf -- but there needs to be a 
Really Good Reason.   I don't see that putc() rises to the level of 
Really Good Reason.  I think there needs to be a clear and dramatic 
payoff in either code size or performance to justify a switch, or 
evidence that users are commonly replacing certain functions with their 
own versions in order to justify the added testing complexity.

IMHO: reliable, small, tunable, in that order.

-dave