Re: Reducing libc size

[Mikko Rapeli <mikko.rapeli%teleca.com@localhost>]

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 03:54:33PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> If you are that space constraint -- why do you not use the crunchgen
> approach with static linkage?

AFAIK crunchgen produces static binaries which I presume consume more
memory than dynamic ones when there are a number of processes sharing the
libs. And we really don't need Hesiod, YP or RPC support.

I found this thread
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.os.netbsd.devel.embedded/268 in which the
original poster ends up using crunchgen. Is it really true that the
kernel handles static binaries for a number processes better than if
the binaries and libs were dynamically loaded?

-Mikko