From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/798 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Current status vs 1.0 wishlist, 0.9 Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 17:01:34 -0400 Message-ID: <20120502210134.GT14673@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20120424003111.GN14673@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <4FA10332.603@unixsol.org> <20120502131740.3bc8dba5.idunham@lavabit.com> 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 1335992291 32372 80.91.229.3 (2 May 2012 20:58:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 20:58:11 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-799-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Wed May 02 22:58:10 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 1SPgcj-0003AO-O9 for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 02 May 2012 22:58:09 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 25794 invoked by uid 550); 2 May 2012 20:58:09 -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 25786 invoked from network); 2 May 2012 20:58:09 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120502131740.3bc8dba5.idunham@lavabit.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:798 Archived-At: On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 01:17:40PM -0700, Isaac Dunham wrote: > Here's what he said: > [...] Everybody's favorite topic again! :-) Hope to get back to everyone on license topic soon. > I know at least one developer (working on one of the Puppy Linux > variants) who's waiting for this, though I can't say about > "widespread" use. Another of the Puppy developers was fairly > impressed with the size, though he hasn't switched from uclibc yet > (for reasons not known to me). > (I'm getting static binaries a couple kb larger than he gets with uclibc) I would believe that it's possible to get smaller binaries with a uClibc that's had lots of features turned off when the library was built, meaning that those features are completely unavailable to applications. On the other hand, I suspect musl will easily beat uClibc in static linking size when uClibc is full-featured (UTF-8, pthread, full malloc, stdio, hex floats in printf, ...) because musl takes a lot more care not to have unnecessary cross-dependency between .o files in the static lib. Still, some things are impossible to optimize out with the linker - for example, printf always pulls in a minimum amount of UTF-8 conversion code for %ls and %c. Rich