Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 17:01:34 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Current status vs 1.0 wishlist, 0.9 On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 01:17:40PM -0700, Isaac Dunham wrote: > Here's what he said: > [...] Everybody's favorite topic again! :-) Hope to get back to everyone on license topic soon. > I know at least one developer (working on one of the Puppy Linux > variants) who's waiting for this, though I can't say about > "widespread" use. Another of the Puppy developers was fairly > impressed with the size, though he hasn't switched from uclibc yet > (for reasons not known to me). > (I'm getting static binaries a couple kb larger than he gets with uclibc) I would believe that it's possible to get smaller binaries with a uClibc that's had lots of features turned off when the library was built, meaning that those features are completely unavailable to applications. On the other hand, I suspect musl will easily beat uClibc in static linking size when uClibc is full-featured (UTF-8, pthread, full malloc, stdio, hex floats in printf, ...) because musl takes a lot more care not to have unnecessary cross-dependency between .o files in the static lib. Still, some things are impossible to optimize out with the linker - for example, printf always pulls in a minimum amount of UTF-8 conversion code for %ls and %c. Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.