Erik Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue Nov 18, 2003 at 11:47:38AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Erik Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > So yes, with uClibc there will be a missing weak of main()
> > > if you include crt1.o into your calculations.
> >
> > Why weak? If
On Tue Nov 18, 2003 at 11:47:38AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Erik Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > So yes, with uClibc there will be a missing weak of main()
> > if you include crt1.o into your calculations.
>
> Why weak? If you link crt1.o against something without a main your
>
Erik Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri Nov 14, 2003 at 12:21:36PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Any idea how uclibc links against main and why glibc does not have the
> > same problem? I guess glibc links the startsup code into every bin
> > while uclibcs startup code jumps in
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> By the way, why (most of) the components of the installer are not
> compiled with -Os? Sometimes this makes great difference of sizes.
>
> Anton Zinoviev
Well, once the system is booted and has access to some bigger medium
(cdrom, hd or net) space is
Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> By the way, why (most of) the components of the installer are not
> compiled with -Os? Sometimes this makes great difference of sizes.
As far as I know, most are. Do you have any examples that are not?
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
By the way, why (most of) the components of the installer are not
compiled with -Os? Sometimes this makes great difference of sizes.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 12:21:36PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Glenn McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
-- snip --
> >
> > I just attempted to make reduced library uClibc and had some problems
> >
> > # mklibs -d ./tmp -L/usr/i386-linux-uclibc/lib/ ./busybox
> > I: Using ld-uClibc.so
On Fri Nov 14, 2003 at 12:21:36PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Any idea how uclibc links against main and why glibc does not have the
> same problem? I guess glibc links the startsup code into every bin
> while uclibcs startup code jumps into uclibc first?
In uClibc, crt1.o on all architec
Glenn McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:37:45 -0500
> Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Glenn McGrath wrote:
>
> > > uClibc can be a shared library, but i didnt consider that in this
> > > comparison.
> >
> > Any reason why not?
>
> It would still be bigger
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:37:45 -0500
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Glenn McGrath wrote:
> > uClibc can be a shared library, but i didnt consider that in this
> > comparison.
>
> Any reason why not?
It would still be bigger than busybox compiled statically against uclibc.
I just attempte
Glenn McGrath wrote:
> Comparing static uClibc busybox against shared library reduced glibc.
>
> busybox-static-uclibc 144276 (80525)
>
> Total Shared (glibc) 727476 (343009)
> Total Static (uclibc) 144276 (80525)
>
> Uncompressed saving 583 kB
> Compressed saving 262 kB
>
> Moving to
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 15:13:44 +1100
Glenn McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> pipe-progress is the only non-busybox binary in bootfloppy-initrd,
> pipe-progress is very simple and could easily assimilated by busybox.
>
> Having only one binary in the first initrd would open the possibility
> of c
pipe-progress is the only non-busybox binary in bootfloppy-initrd,
pipe-progress is very simple and could easily assimilated by busybox.
Having only one binary in the first initrd would open the possibility of
compiling it statically, this would eliminate the requirment for
ld-linux.so.2 which is
13 matches
Mail list logo
