This is the mail archive of the libc-hacker@sourceware.cygnus.com mailing list for the glibc project.
Note that libc-hacker is a closed list. You may look at the archives of this list, but subscription and posting are not open.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
> > >#include <stdio.h> > >int main(int argc, char **argv) > >{ > > printf ("Hello World\n"); > >} > > > >compiles to 985,018 bytes. This is almost all libc overhead. > >Most of which is never going to be needed. > > Yes, it is a bit sad. Somewhere I have some half-baked patches that allow you > to stub out the majority of the gconv and wchar code at configure time; I did > this for an internal project where the resulting binaries had to fit into ROM. > > The other thing I looked at was dropping the stdio implementation from newlib > (which is far less featureful but also a whole lot smaller) into libc. I > think I got that to mostly work and again I can probably dig out some patches > if anyone is interested. > May I ask if it is ok to add some flags to get a smaller static binary without gconv and/or wchar support? I am thinking to write libNoGconv.a and libNoWchar.a. People can stub out gconv and/or wchar with # gcc -static .... -lNoGconv -lNoWchar Will that work for people who want smaller static binaries or do you want smaller static binaries with supports for everything? -- H.J. Lu (hjl@gnu.org)
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |