ctype.h stuff, saves ~2kB [was: Re: [PATCH] ed stuff #1]

Rob Landley rob at landley.net
Thu Jun 8 00:52:19 UTC 2006


On Wednesday 07 June 2006 4:46 pm, Bernhard Fischer wrote:
> >However, keep in mind this might only be a win on glibc, but not on
> > uClibc.
>
> Yes. Apparently uClibc has less bloated implementations of these.
> It's trivial to use the non-bloated for the uclibc case and "ours" for
> glibc.

I really don't want to go down that road.  If we try to de-bloat glibc, we'll 
eventually wind up rewriting the whole thing.  They did it, it's called 
uClibc.  We should only put in a standard library replacement if we can beat 
uClibc.  Anybody choosing glibc over uClibc has already said "we know we 
could be smaller, and we choose not to be".

> >What environments have you _tested_ this in?  Building stuff into BusyBox
> >that's _only_ a size win against glibc ranks up there with optimizing the
> >idle loop in terms of pointless activities...
>
> Hehe
> It's purely a size tweak in case the libc under us has bloated versions
> of these, which glibc for whatever reasons seems to have.

That's because glibc has bloated versions of everything.  Working around 
_that_ is not our problem.

Rob
-- 
Never bet against the cheap plastic solution.



More information about the busybox mailing list