[klibc] Register parameters are unsafe with gcc 3.3.2
H. Peter Anvin
hpa at zytor.com
Sun Jun 6 14:47:20 PDT 2004
Olaf Hering wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 06, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>I'm a little confused... there were two patches, one which seemed to
>>have another patch embedded, should I apply one, both or... ?
> The small one shows only the differences between netbsd and what klibc
> needs to compile.
Okay, I applied your patch, but the resulting sh binary is 60% larger
than the old one - 90K instead of 55K (on i386.) I think this is
sufficient enough of a delta that I think we need to ask the people here
-- is this worth it, or is this bloat?
More information about the klibc