why does asking to build libbusybox change the size of busybox?

Robert P. J. Day rpjday at crashcourse.ca
Fri Jul 18 12:16:41 UTC 2008


  perhaps a dumb question but, with a "defconfig" confguration, i
built busybox and here are the results:

$ ls -l
total 2104
-rwxrwxr-x 1 rpjday rpjday 638976 2008-07-18 05:19 busybox
-rwxrwxr-x 1 rpjday rpjday 760454 2008-07-18 05:19 busybox_unstripped
-rw-rw-r-- 1 rpjday rpjday 712694 2008-07-18 05:19 busybox_unstripped.map
-rw-rw-r-- 1 rpjday rpjday  27553 2008-07-18 05:19 busybox_unstripped.out
$

  i then reconfigured and selected to build libbusybox, and that
changed the busybox executables thusly:

$ ls -l
total 2128
-rwxrwxr-x 1 rpjday rpjday 700448 2008-07-18 05:22 busybox
-rwxrwxr-x 1 rpjday rpjday 833086 2008-07-18 05:22 busybox_unstripped
-rw-rw-r-- 1 rpjday rpjday 594534 2008-07-18 05:22 busybox_unstripped.map
-rw-rw-r-- 1 rpjday rpjday  27579 2008-07-18 05:22 busybox_unstripped.out
$

  the difference seems to be additional content in busybox_unstripped
of the form:

080748bf t .L10
0808b2ed t .L1011
0808b2fd t .L1015
0808b307 t .L1017
0808b31c t .L1018
0808b331 t .L1020
0808b341 t .L1021
...

  but why the additional content?  as i read it, simply selecting to
build libbusybox shouldn't affect the busybox executable itself,
should it?  after all, it's not as if the busybox executable is taking
advantage of that new shared lib, so why the difference?  thanks.

rday
--

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry:
    Have classroom, will lecture.

http://crashcourse.ca                          Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
========================================================================



More information about the busybox mailing list