John , thank you for pointing out that size()  is used in the comparison
table, somehow oversaw that.
BTW, out of curiosity where does the extra size come from ? Some elf
specific format data ?


On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 5:52 PM, John Spencer <maillist-musl@barfooze.de>wrote:

> On 04/07/2013 04:43 PM, Timerlan Moldobaev wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Can you please help with reducing the size of statically linked libc.a
>> library ?
>> Whereas the comparison table located in
>> http://www.etalabs.net/**compare_libcs.html<http://www.etalabs.net/compare_libcs.html>
>> claims the size of complete .a set as 333k, I got around 2M while building
>> the library on x86_64 with gcc version 4.1.1.
>>
>
> the comparison page also notes that it is using size(1) and not filesize.
>
>
>  I suppose that might be caused by including in libc.a  object files that
>> belong to libm, librt, libpthread and others.
>> Am I right ?
>> Is there any way to compile libc.a solely ?
>>
>
> the only thing that can theoretically be left away is libm, but this would
> need some effort.
> things like pthread support are fundamental to musl's inner workings, so
> they can not be left away.
>
>
>