cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: Re: [ast-developers] AST code size reduction project --------
> Glenn, I do not have calculated detailed numbers yet. But - > http://packages.debian.org/sid/busybox-static describes that busybox > as static build with many built ins - look at > http://busybox.net/downloads/BusyBox.html (awk,sed,vi included) - > consumes 1.4M (suspicious!) on i386 installed while ksh93 with 10 or > 12 built ins consumes 2.8M installed. > > I still have to verify the size numbers and the enabled range of built > ins. My gut feeling says ast-ksh needs to shrink by half and double > the number of built ins to be competitive with busybox. But this a gut > feeling. Real numbers next week. > > Olga > With ast you are paying more for the libraries but this is amortized by shrinking the same of commands. If you compare the size of the ast libraries and the 40 commands that run as built-ins they the size difference is far less. If you want to reduce the size further, maybe you should merge sfio into libc and replace the stdio library. Right now you have two implementations of stdio. This should save about 250K. Also, the malloc routines can be replaced by the vmalloc() library. This should save around 60K. Another 300K can be saved by replacing awk script with ksh scripts. I also don't understand why an extra 1.5 meg is important given the price of memory. I couln't be more than a few cents. David Korn [email protected] _______________________________________________ ast-developers mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.research.att.com/mailman/listinfo/ast-developers
