[uClibc]Re: Tiny C Compiler!

Arnaud Rolly arolly at anfora.fr
Tue Aug 20 07:26:21 UTC 2002


On Tuesday 20 August 2002 05:24, David Schleef wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 10:43:04AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> > hooh pxw <electrorb at yahoo.com> writes:
> > > Do make Native uClibc/Tcc-0.9.10 toolchain.
> > >
> > > why?
> > > Actually, Same reason why uclibc made instead of using glibc.
> > > small size(the golden rule), fast compile speed, etc, ...
> > > anyway, because it is small.
> >
> > Do you mean to compile user-applications, or to compile uClibc?
>
> It would be an interesting project to develop a compiler that
> compiles to space-efficient bytecode instead of assembly.  It
> wouldn't be too difficult to make it completely transparent
> with linked C code.  Unfortunately, I'm not sure one can develop
> a bytecode significantly more efficient than i386 binary code.
If disk/flash size matters, use UPX (http://upx.sourceforge.net) to get about 
50% binary size reduction.

Yesterday, i was toying with tcc and uClibc and i had an idea that must 
already been exposed here (don't know!) : If embedded size really matters, 
why not extend the current uClibC linker to support compressed libraries ? 
It'll give about 50% storage size reduction.

A good ANSI C portable compression implementation : 
http://www.oberhumer.com/opensource/ucl/

-- 
Arnaud Rolly
arolly at anfora.fr



More information about the uClibc mailing list