superfluous code in gunzip.c?
Rob Landley
rob at landley.net
Sat Mar 4 15:52:41 UTC 2006
On Friday 03 March 2006 7:26 pm, David Daney wrote:
> Rob Landley wrote:
> > So having -d accepted but ignored by our gunzip makes some (arguably
> > broken) scripts happy, at the cost of one byte. No point in adding it to
> > the usage, since it doesn't do anything.
>
> If both programs have exactly the same options, then the getopt flags
> string will (should) be exactly the same.
I said the gnu versions have exactly the same options as each other. We just
support a subset. (Our gzip documents -cdf but also accepts/ignores 1-9, and
our gunzip documents -cft but also accepts/ignores d.)
> So there may be savings to be had by looking at all getopt specification
> strings for all applets and reordering the contents to see if sharing is
> possible.
If the compiler does this for us automatically, yay. (And it would pretty
much have to be binutils, not gcc.) But it's not quite that simple, our
config strings vary based on what features you've configured in.
I'm certainly not discouraging this type of micro-optimization (we do it all
the time), but at the moment there are plenty of low-hanging fruit in the
tree that would give a bigger bang for the buck. For example, the current
fdisk is over 60k and a sane implementation would probably be somewhere
around 10-20% of that.
Of course if you can come up with specific example patches that shrink the
tree, one of us will happily apply them. :)
> David Daney
Rob
--
Never bet against the cheap plastic solution.
More information about the busybox
mailing list