On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 11:08:53AM +0200, Carmelo AMOROSO wrote: >Folks, >time ago we added argp support into ST branch of uClibc because it is >used by some elfutils tests and prelink tool that we build (we did not >want to modify them to use getopt instead of argp). So we ported the >argp support from glibc into uClibc and modified it accordingly to fit >into the uClibc build system. We did not upstream this work because it >is a feature that is almost never used, so it does not worth to add this >extra code into uClibc (I discussed this with Bernhard) > >If some of you are going to use prelink, this support will be actually >required and should have our patches. I was thinking to create a >"libuargp" to keep the argp code in a separate shared object avoiding to >populate the libc.so with seldom used functions. > >So "libuargp" would be transparently linkedby using the AS_NEEDED >directive in the linker script libc.so for those applications that >actually requires argp symbols (as for libubacktrace). > >What do you think ?
Can you provide a patch for us to look at? As said previously a libuargp is fine with me for it doesn't penalise the common case except taking up storage-space in a few cases (iff prelink-support is enabled). If there is consensus that we can build it in if prelink is enabled and have it AS_NEEDED otherwise, then it's fine with me. _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
