This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the crossgcc project.
See the CrossGCC FAQ for lots more information.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
> Given the ever-decreasing cost of both RAM and disk storage and the ever- > increasing presence of broadband connections these days, the cost-benefit > ratio of smaller files as against all this grief and potential reinstall- > from-a-system-disk-ness the dynamic linking causes has IMO shifted so far as > to make dynamic linking a total albatross. I'm sticking with static. I > don't really understand why there is a trend toward increasing amounts of > dynamic linking (e.g. libgcc) in the direction gcc development is taking. Well, using Glibc the smallest static executables (think ln, ls, cat, that sort of things) average 240K instead of +- 20K, so my /usr/bin would suddenly grow from 350Mb or so... How many executables are there on an average system? :-) Now, maybe the real problem is the bloat in Glibc, but then the Glibc people will tell you that it's not a real problem considering space is so cheap *and* it's shared... ack. /Y ------ Want more information? See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/ Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |