> I'm sorta curious why linking against one of our small malloc
> implementations still pulls in jemalloc:
Using my shell on ftp.n.o (9.0_STABLE):
cc -v says the ld line for cc -o null null.c -lgnumalloc is
ld -plugin /usr/libexec/liblto_plugin.so -plugin-opt=/usr/libexec/lto-wrapper
Taylor R Campbell wrote:
> A quicker way to address most of it is to just define your own malloc:
>
> $ cat null.o
> #include
> void *malloc(size_t n) { return NULL; }
> void *realloc(void *p, size_t n) { return NULL; }
> void *calloc(size_t n, size_t sz) { return NULL; }
> void free(void *p) {}
> Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2023 15:11:56 - (UTC)
> From: mlel...@serpens.de (Michael van Elst)
>
> crt0 pulls in
> - atexit
> - environment
> - static TLS
> - stack guard
>
> which all more or less pull in jemalloc, stdio and string functions.
>
> You need to replace these with dummies (compile
On Sun, Jul 02, 2023 at 06:52:55PM -0400, Mouse wrote:
> > The CSU code has pretty much no idea on what the rest of the world is
> > going to do. It does: [...]
>
> > There is no way with ELF to decide at link time which of those
> > features are used by the program and therefore no way to
On Sun, Jul 02, 2023 at 11:16:12PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> > At least in 9.3, dlopen() in a static binary does not work. Try using
> > a NSS module from a statically lunked binary to check that.
>
> It does work in the sense that it always fails.
It fails silently, there not even an
> The CSU code has pretty much no idea on what the rest of the world is
> going to do. It does: [...]
> There is no way with ELF to decide at link time which of those
> features are used by the program and therefore no way to remove any
> of them.
I don't think that's true.
If the program
On Sun, Jul 02, 2023 at 05:04:10PM +0200, Martin Husemann wrote:
> The other things that we *might* look into (if someone volunteers) is to
> better modularize the CSU code, but it is not immediately clear how
> that could/should be done.
The CSU code has pretty much no idea on what the rest of
On Sun, Jul 02, 2023 at 01:20:51AM +, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 01, 2023 at 02:25:03PM +, RVP wrote:
> > Not to forget the code for C++ support. And, of course even static
> > binaries may call dlopen() and friends. So that dl*() and the ELF bits
> > right there.
>
> At least
mo...@rodents-montreal.org (Mouse) writes:
>> Way more interesting than useless tech demo sizes would size
>> inflation of a real world minimal program, when linked statically.
>Why? If I'm looking at overhead size, I am most interested in just the
>overhead size, which is exactly what a no-op
> With most real world programs (hopefully) nearly 100% of what you see
> as overhead now is actually needed - and it still may be bigger than
> what we hope for due to suboptimal modularization.
True. But this is not always as fixable as that wording implies.
For example, a program that calls
On Sun, Jul 02, 2023 at 01:49:57PM -0400, Mouse wrote:
> Why? If I'm looking at overhead size, I am most interested in just the
> overhead size, which is exactly what a no-op program gives. If I want
> to look at the overhead of printf, or malloc, or something, I'd use a
> program that just
> Note that a "do nothing" binary is a useless tech demo
I chose it because, to a good approximation, the resulting size is
nothing but overhead. It is useless as far as its own functionality
goes; it is not useless in that it very clearly measures pure overhead.
I actually started out on
On Sun, Jul 02, 2023 at 12:34:25PM +0200, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote:
> It is curious that you react this way in a thread where, you as others,
> have had your jaw drop seeing the size of a literally do_nothing
> executable. This was unseen precisely because few use static linking.
I'm not sure
> On Jul 1, 2023, at 6:20 PM, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 01, 2023 at 02:25:03PM +, RVP wrote:
>> Not to forget the code for C++ support. And, of course even static
>> binaries may call dlopen() and friends. So that dl*() and the ELF bits
>> right there.
>
> At least in 9.3,
Le Sat, Jul 01, 2023 at 06:39:32PM -, Christos Zoulas a écrit :
> In article <20230603120221.0766b60...@jupiter.mumble.net>,
> Taylor R Campbell wrote:
> >> Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2023 13:45:44 +0200
> >> From: tlaro...@polynum.com
> >>
> >> So I suggest to add a mention of sysexits(7) to style.
Le Sat, Jul 01, 2023 at 12:04:25PM -0700, Jason Thorpe a écrit :
>
> > On Jul 1, 2023, at 8:20 AM, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote:
> >
> > This is also what I meant by "static seems to be considered deprecated".
>
> Honestly, I find the obsession with static linking hilariously quaint.
> NetBSD
On Sun, 2 Jul 2023, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
On Sat, Jul 01, 2023 at 02:25:03PM +, RVP wrote:
Not to forget the code for C++ support. And, of course even static
binaries may call dlopen() and friends. So that dl*() and the ELF bits
right there.
At least in 9.3, dlopen() in a static binary
17 matches
Mail list logo
