Re: [dev] Detaolb

From: Matthias-Christian Ott <>
Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 16:58:01 +0200

On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 07:01:55AM -0400, Kris Maglione wrote:
> On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 12:28:47PM +0200, Matthias-Christian Ott wrote:
>> On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 11:17:18AM +0200, pancake wrote:
>>> Just my first time I see this minimal devel distro :)
>> uClibc is by no means minimal, even though it's smaller than glibc.
>> In my opinion a minimal system has all libraries in source code form
>> and statically links and compiles them with the programme's source code
>> (much like templates in C++). You can do a lot of optimisations using
>> this approach (constant propagation and dead code elimination, inlining
>> etc.), the programmes can be sequentially read from disk and will be
>> much smaller.
> I don't know why I'm getting into this. I can't help but suspect that
> this is troll bait, but I don't know what goes on on this list. What you
> just said makes no sense to me. None of that has anything to do with
> minimalism. Efficiency, maybe. Disk efficiency, certainly not. There are
> reasons that most embedded systems dynamically link everything: it saves
> disk space. And, as for the read speed, dynamically linked libs are

Even flash disks are pretty cheap these days. Moreover, many statically
linked programmes are often smaller (see dietlibc).

> mmaped (on most systems, anyway) and shared between processes, which
> means, of course, that they're read into memory once. Statically linked
> binaries certainly might be read faster. They might not. It depends on
> too many variables to make blanked statements.

Dynamically linked programmes have some relocation overhead. I don't know
the actual performance decrease but it should be some percent (however
modern processor are optimised for this, so no comparison would be fair).

> Well, at any rate, I've just reread your post, and realized that that
> kind of nonsensical tripe (strewn with unconnected buzz words) can't be
> anything but troll bait. Nevertheless, I've gone to all the trouble of
> composing this rant, so I may as well send it.

It was meant serious.

> --
> Kris Maglione
> And the users exclaimed with a laugh and a taunt: "It's just what we
> asked for but not what we want."
Received on Sat May 23 2009 - 14:58:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sat May 23 2009 - 15:00:01 UTC