On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 07:01:55AM -0400, Kris Maglione wrote: > On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 12:28:47PM +0200, Matthias-Christian Ott wrote: >> On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 11:17:18AM +0200, pancake wrote: >>> http://detaolb.sourceforge.net/ >>> >>> Just my first time I see this minimal devel distro :) >> >> uClibc is by no means minimal, even though it's smaller than glibc. >> >> In my opinion a minimal system has all libraries in source code form >> and statically links and compiles them with the programme's source code >> (much like templates in C++). You can do a lot of optimisations using >> this approach (constant propagation and dead code elimination, inlining >> etc.), the programmes can be sequentially read from disk and will be >> much smaller. > > I don't know why I'm getting into this. I can't help but suspect that > this is troll bait, but I don't know what goes on on this list. What you > just said makes no sense to me. None of that has anything to do with > minimalism. Efficiency, maybe. Disk efficiency, certainly not. There are > reasons that most embedded systems dynamically link everything: it saves > disk space. And, as for the read speed, dynamically linked libs are
Even flash disks are pretty cheap these days. Moreover, many statically linked programmes are often smaller (see dietlibc). > mmaped (on most systems, anyway) and shared between processes, which > means, of course, that they're read into memory once. Statically linked > binaries certainly might be read faster. They might not. It depends on > too many variables to make blanked statements. Dynamically linked programmes have some relocation overhead. I don't know the actual performance decrease but it should be some percent (however modern processor are optimised for this, so no comparison would be fair). > Well, at any rate, I've just reread your post, and realized that that > kind of nonsensical tripe (strewn with unconnected buzz words) can't be > anything but troll bait. Nevertheless, I've gone to all the trouble of > composing this rant, so I may as well send it. It was meant serious. > -- > Kris Maglione > > And the users exclaimed with a laugh and a taunt: "It's just what we > asked for but not what we want." > > >
