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