[uClibc]ld.so, and all that fanciness.
Erik Andersen
andersen at lineo.com
Wed Apr 25 18:14:12 UTC 2001
On Wed Apr 25, 2001 at 01:27:34PM -0400, Tom Cameron wrote:
> Hello all,
> Now that the ld.so in uClibc has matured a bit, what are the
> comparisons between it and the Glibc ld.so? Any compelling reasons to
> switch? What about size/performance? Just wondering. Not that I'm not
> going to use it. ; ) Keep up the good work all.
It is quite comparable on x86 and does all the expected things. On my
box /lib/ld-2.1.3.so is 84k, while uClibc's ld-linux-uclibc.so.1
is only 22k.
The code in uClibc's ld.so is not as clean as glibc's and is harder to
port to other arches at the moment. This is being worked on though...
> BTW...Does anyone have even a vague idea of when we could begin
> seeing "test" versions of hush in BusyBox? Could we add it as a
> Config.h option? How close to complete (WRT functionality) is it
> exactly? Anything astounding that it's missing? Just wondering.
> Thanks all!
Larry and I have been talking about just that. Expect to see this
Real Soon Now(tm),
-Erik
--
Erik B. Andersen email: andersen at lineo.com
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--
More information about the uClibc
mailing list