On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, Richard Lancaster wrote:
> So the size of the kernel is fine but the C libs just take the piss. I
I feel your pain. It's not just that it's huge, it's growing rapidly too-
compare the size of Glibc 2.0 to Glibc 2.2.
> 1. If I only require fairly basic functionality from the Clibs (Eg. malloc,
> file handling, forking, maths functions and few other things) then is it
> possible (easy?) to rip stuff out of glibc to reduce its size?
Not easily. There was somebody on the Glibc mailing list a while back
talking about producing a slimmed down version for embedded systems, but
it was rapidly dismissed (they claimed that it would cause too much work
for them because people would expect them to support the slimmed down
version as well). To the Glibc maintainers, the size of the library is
irrelevant compared to things like standards compliance, native language
support, etc.
> 2. Are there alternatives to glibc which compile as dynamic libs for the arm
> linux kernel which could solve my size problem. For example is it possible
> to compile newlib as a dynamic lib for arm-linux (I've tried and haven't had
> much success), and if so does it have any size benefits? What about
> uC-libc? (foobar)-libc? All suggestions appreciated.
uC-libc is far smaller and I believe it works dynamically on ARM (I
haven't tried it myself though). You'll need to get it from the Lineo CVS
(see http://opensource.lineo.com/ for details). There's also dietlibc, but
I'm not sure if that works on ARM or not. I don't think newlib can be used
as a dynamic library or used on ARM Linux currently.
--
------- Alex Holden -------
http://www.linuxhacker.org/
http://www.robogeeks.org/
_______________________________________________
http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm
Please visit the above address for information on this list.
