What kind of application are you running that you have to care about string constants in the program binary? I can't imagine a situation where you have so little flash you can't store strings, but you have enough storage and CPU cycles to keep logs or run UART. IMO, running that close to the limit of your chip's resources is a bad thing.
This post reads to me like complaining that your hammer ruined your screw.
the post involves actual Intel firmware engineers solving actual problems for their embedded devices; one example of such a device is a power management controller within a chipset.
it is quite astounding to me that you're going to try to claim that Intel is using its own chips in an "incorrect" manner.
the presentation might help: https://youtu.be/Dt0vx-7e_B0?si=QLfI5-9LHh5ehb5a&t=326 where specifically the problem they have encountered is that the string constants end up roughly the size of their application code.
Yeah, there's no indication at all what the use case here is from this post.
And yes, I'd still argue this is poor design, it doesn't matter who designed it. We're all very aware that Intel is not immune to bad design decisions. It's quite astounding to me that you're claiming Itanium was a good design. /eyeroll
To be fair, it's not immediately obvious that this blog post is authored by an Intel engineering lead. I had to track down his LinkedIn page to find that out.
This post reads to me like complaining that your hammer ruined your screw.