[BusyBox] Re: [uClibc]ld.so, and all that fanciness.

[Tom Cameron]

Excellent.  Thank you all for your hard work on these projects.  We'd
all be lost without you.

--
Thomas Cameron
Network Technician / Operations Specialist
St. Mary's Bank

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Erik Andersen [SMTP:andersen at lineo.com]
> Sent:	Wednesday, April 25, 2001 2:14 PM
> To:	Tom Cameron
> Cc:	busybox at uclibc.org; uclibc at uclibc.org
> Subject:	[BusyBox] Re: [uClibc]ld.so, and all that fanciness.
> 
> 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--
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> busybox mailing list
> busybox at uclibc.org
> http://uclibc.org/mailman/listinfo/busybox