From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 19:23:29 -0700
From: Roman Shaposhnick <rvs@sun.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] impressive
Message-ID: <20060425022329.GF25096@submarine>
References: <444D3701.50303@lanl.gov> <20060425031523.N21356@mrwint.cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20060425031523.N21356@mrwint.cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 4534f3f4-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 03:15:23AM +0100, Derek Fawcus wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 02:37:21PM -0600, Ronald G Minnich wrote:
> > This program:
> >
> > compiles to a 512KB binary on linux with -static
>
> glibc is bloated,  printf and strtoul are also quite large.  Try dietlibc

  There's also uclibc..

> Why do I need an exception handler frame (assuming that is what
> the name means)?

  Well, this is to unwind trough exceptions through the C stack:
  foo_cpp() calls bar() calls  ex_cpp() where ex_cpp() and foo_cpp()
  are written in C++ and bar is written in C. If you have .eh_frame
  in place an exception thrown from ex_cpp() can properly reach
  foo_cpp().

  But stop complaining! Next thing you know -- there'll be Java ByteCode
  stashed in .java_byte_code_in_case_you_needed_it section!

Thanks,
Roman.

P.S. I wish the last one was a joke :-(