[PATCH 05/19] buildsystem: remove the -static-libgcc flag, saves a few Kb
Denys Vlasenko
vda.linux at googlemail.com
Thu Sep 27 13:02:40 UTC 2012
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Florian Fainelli
<florian at alphacore.org> wrote:
> On Tuesday 25 September 2012 18:42:05 Rich Felker wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 02:06:04PM +0200, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>> > From: Felix Fietkau <nbd at openwrt.org>
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Felix Fietkau <nbd at openwrt.org>
>> > ---
>> > Makefile.flags | 2 +-
>> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/Makefile.flags b/Makefile.flags
>> > index e77c0e5..f129cef 100644
>> > --- a/Makefile.flags
>> > +++ b/Makefile.flags
>> > @@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-fno-builtin-strlen -finline-
> limit=0 -fomit-frame-poi
>> > # -fno-guess-branch-probability: prohibit pseudo-random guessing
>> > # of branch probabilities (hopefully makes bloatcheck more stable):
>> > CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-fno-guess-branch-probability,)
>> > -CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-funsigned-char -static-libgcc,)
>> > +CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-funsigned-char,)
>>
>> On most systems this flag should be a no-op, but when it's not, you
>> definitely want it. Using shared libgcc might save a tiny amount of
>> space in the binary, but it will add 4-8k of memory usage to each
>> instance of busybox at runtime. This is not a reasonable tradeoff.
>
> Ok, so maybe we should make this available via some configuration knob? For
> sure, we'd like to save the space involved by using a statically linked libgcc
> to busybox. What do you think?
What difference do you see in binary size with/without this option?
More information about the busybox
mailing list