[BusyBox] Re: busybox digest, Vol 1 #258 - 3 msgs

[Vladimir N. Oleynik]

Mark Whitley wrote:

> Hence, the BSS does not exist on the disk, per se, except as a name
> and a size. The value reported from the 'size' command to show the
> size of the BSS is the run-time size, not the disk size. 
> The gain from eliminating big static
> buffers is that much less memory is used at run-time, at the cost of a
> slightly larger size on disk. I consider this to be an overall win.

Well where you have found benefit? 
Each utility spends memory only so much, how many it is necessary to it.
And on demand.
Stack too memory, and strongly limited. 
Also you overlook, that strict audit as BSS it is allocated nulled is
necessary, and it is used in algorithms, and the stack - 
is filled with dust.
All your shifts only will lower speed of performance and less size.


--w
vodz