From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/766 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Request for comments: website updates? Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:31:09 -0400 Message-ID: <20120424203109.GP14673@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20120424010116.GO14673@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20120424125524.1d699880@newbook> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1335299302 15867 80.91.229.3 (24 Apr 2012 20:28:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:28:22 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-767-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Tue Apr 24 22:28:21 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SMmLT-0001qo-AO for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 22:28:19 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 17852 invoked by uid 550); 24 Apr 2012 20:28:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 17841 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2012 20:28:18 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120424125524.1d699880@newbook> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:766 Archived-At: On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 12:55:24PM -0700, Isaac Dunham wrote: > On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 21:01:16 -0400 > Rich Felker wrote: > > > I know a lot of stuff in the musl website is a bit outdated, lacking > > in details, etc. and I'd appreciate some ideas to get it more > > useful/informative between now and the 0.9 release. Website is a GREAT > > bikeshed so come on everybody, have at it.. ;-) > > > Update the comparisons? > IIRC, glibc has dropped the rpc headers and expect a third-party > implementation to be used (tirpc was one, IIRC). > The ABI is still present there. > Sizes for musl are outdated (~575k libc.so, nearly 1.4 MB libc.a here). size(1) and du(1) are very different; the measurements are size(1). And they're actually inflated because I measured my debug build, and size(1) is counting debug info (eh_frame) as code because if this were C++, it would be part of the code... Rich