[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 10:43:25 +0300
From: Timerlan Moldobaev <moldobaev@...il.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Building libc separately from libm,librt,libpthread and others
John , thank you for pointing out that size() is used in the comparison
table, somehow oversaw that.
BTW, out of curiosity where does the extra size come from ? Some elf
specific format data ?
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 5:52 PM, John Spencer <maillist-musl@...fooze.de>wrote:
> On 04/07/2013 04:43 PM, Timerlan Moldobaev wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Can you please help with reducing the size of statically linked libc.a
>> library ?
>> Whereas the comparison table located in
>> http://www.etalabs.net/**compare_libcs.html<http://www.etalabs.net/compare_libcs.html>
>> claims the size of complete .a set as 333k, I got around 2M while building
>> the library on x86_64 with gcc version 4.1.1.
>>
>
> the comparison page also notes that it is using size(1) and not filesize.
>
>
> I suppose that might be caused by including in libc.a object files that
>> belong to libm, librt, libpthread and others.
>> Am I right ?
>> Is there any way to compile libc.a solely ?
>>
>
> the only thing that can theoretically be left away is libm, but this would
> need some effort.
> things like pthread support are fundamental to musl's inner workings, so
> they can not be left away.
>
>
>
Content of type "text/html" skipped
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.
