From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 03:37:04 +0100 From: Derek Fawcus To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] impressive Message-ID: <20060425033704.O21356@mrwint.cisco.com> References: <444D3701.50303@lanl.gov> <20060425031523.N21356@mrwint.cisco.com> <20060425022329.GF25096@submarine> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20060425022329.GF25096@submarine>; from rvs@sun.com on Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 07:23:29PM -0700 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 453fbb22-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 07:23:29PM -0700, Roman Shaposhnick wrote: > 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: There is no c++ code here, last I looked there is no c++ in dietlibc. I assume this must just be gcc being paranoid, now if only I can find the flag to remove this (other than using strip/objcopy as a hammer). > But stop complaining! Next thing you know -- there'll be Java ByteCode > stashed in .java_byte_code_in_case_you_needed_it section! Well I always find the .comment sections annoying, lots of junk saying which version of gcc compiled a given module... DF