[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