On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 11:00:46AM +0000, Will Newton wrote: >>> $ size static_stdio{,_glibc} >>> text data bss dec hex filename >>> 2572 128 36 2736 ab0 static_stdio >>> 512074 1928 6988 520990 7f31e static_stdio_glibc >>> I, personally, prefer the 3k variant over the 500k one. >> >>500k? I rarely have a uClibc above 200k, not sure how you have managed >>to make one so large. > > note the _glibc suffix.
That hardly makes it a fair comparison does it? >>What does the app actually do though? What is the use case for >>stdio-less apps in a static linked environment? I argue it is close to > > it just calls write() and returns. There are numerous use-cases where > you just don't need stdio. Think of e.g. some network-service on > something like http://www.picotux.com/ or other stuff where you don't > have to directly pretty-print to a user. Simplest useful use-case is > a static write(1,"works\n", 6) program run as init=/xyz. You get the > idea.. I know it is possible to write such an app. But try to make it useful, if you have a system with more than a few binaries static linking is actually a size loss! >>no use, and the fact that it has been broken for years and no-one has >>fixed it rather backs me up on that. > > Just because something is broken doesn't mean that it should not be > fixed ;) I agree it should be fixed, and I appreciate your work on this, I just hope we can get a small and neat fix for the problem if possible. _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
