Question about svn 14077

Jason Schoon floydpink at gmail.com
Fri Feb 17 02:20:49 UTC 2006


With this, and the strptime discussion earlier, I was wondering if we should
make some of these a config option.  In my mind, making use of the built-in
glibc functions generally makes the most sense.  If building statically,
using uclibc is often the best way to go.

Perhaps this could be a third option, turned on via a configuration option,
for those trying to obtain the absolute smallest implementation?  *shrug*


On 2/16/06, Rob Landley <rob at landley.net> wrote:
>
> Why on earth does busybox have its own strlen() implementation?  (Why does
> bb_strlen() exist?)
>
> I remember asking this question at some point in the past, and I'm pretty
> sure
> I got an answer, but I don't remember what it was and google is being
> unhelpful.
>
> I presume we do this to save space over unrolling the inline version?  Is
> this
> still a good idea with gcc 4.x?
>
> Rob
> (No, becoming maintainer doesn't mean I stop being ignorant or easily
> confused.  If anything, it's increased it...)
> --
> Never bet against the cheap plastic solution.
> _______________________________________________
> busybox mailing list
> busybox at busybox.net
> http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/attachments/20060216/728e1afb/attachment-0002.htm 


More information about the busybox mailing list