This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Statically linked binary way way too big
- From: Denis Vlasenko <vda at port dot imtp dot ilyichevsk dot odessa dot ua>
- To: Kaz Kylheku <kaz at ashi dot footprints dot net>
- Cc: "Martin v. Loewis" <martin at v dot loewis dot de>, <libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 10:25:08 -0200
- Subject: Re: Statically linked binary way way too big
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0210160015470.30351-100000@ashi.FootPrints.net>
- Reply-to: vda at port dot imtp dot ilyichevsk dot odessa dot ua
On 16 October 2002 05:24, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> > > > int main() {
> > > > return 0;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > Based on release announcements ("we don't want
> > > > to hear about size") and discussions with Linus
> > > > seen in archive I know that glibc does not try
> > > > to minimize library size, but nearly half a megabyte
> > > > can never be right.
> > >
> > > Why do you say this? How do you determine which size would be
> > > right, and which would not?
> >
> > Say that again? It's ok for this program to occupy 400k?
>
> Based on the relative frequency of static versus dynamic linking,
> I'd say that it's irrelevant how big or small a static binary is.
I don't ask is it relevant or not. I'm asking *why* is it so big?
--
vda