On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 08:24:26AM -0400, Poly-poly man wrote: >On Monday 14 July 2008 03:57:28 am you wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 05:59:58PM -0400, Poly-p man wrote: >> >uclibc's regexp code is 53k by itself. >> >> There are 2 regexp in uClibc, which one are you talking about? > >not sure - the config option for regex just says it's 53k by itself. I think >that might be the older one... > >> >Since things like expr, awk, etc. need it, I was wondering if it was >> >even feasible to consider writing our own miniature, >> >just-what-we-need-and-no-more regexp code, possibly implementing that as >> >an option or whatever. >> > >> >I could do some work on this, but I'd like some input from the mailing >> >list first. >> >> I don't think this makes sense, improve uClibc instead, i'd say. > >It would be nice to improve uClibc, but I think about it this way - uClibc >needs a full implementation of regex. Busybox needs only what it needs >(unless I'm missing something...) > >53k is a lot...
Needless duplication doesn't make sense to me. There is no benefit in having 2 separate regex impls, one for the whole system and a crippled one just for busybox. If you will only ever have busybox as the only regex-user in your image, then you should have stripped any non-referenced funcs off your final image anyway. Voilà no need to have duplicate impls in the first place. _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
