On 9 Jul 2002, Richard Doyle wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-07-09 at 11:01, Mike Noyes wrote:
[...]
> > The other possibility is static
> > complies. I thought someone said that uClibc static binaries were
> > actually smaller than ones compiled dynamically. Is this correct?
>
> I doubt it, but haven't done any tests. If true, I'd happily save space
> by statically compiling all my binaries, but it sounds too much like a
> free lunch.
No free lunch.
If you have only one executable, static linking is smaller.
If you have multiple executables that use a particular library, it will
almost certainly be more efficient to link dynamically.
--
Re: the value of uClibc...
I think it is good that someone is doing this, but it is also good to be
clear that the gain in code size comes at a potential narrowing of
applicability due to incompatibility with glibc. For closed boxes, this
is probably actually desirable... but one of the selling points of LEAF is
its adaptability. To the extent that uClibc fails to implement features
of glibc (e.g. localization), the usefulness of LEAF based on it will be
necessarily limited.
To reiterate.... I think there is room for both, but the tradeoffs should
be made clear to new LEAF users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Newmiller The ..... ..... Go Live...
DCN:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Basics: ##.#. ##.#. Live Go...
Live: OO#.. Dead: OO#.. Playing
Research Engineer (Solar/Batteries O.O#. #.O#. with
/Software/Embedded Controllers) .OO#. .OO#. rocks...2k
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Stuff, things, and much much more.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
Leaf-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
