Re: Reducing libc size

[David Laight <david%l8s.co.uk@localhost>]

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 09:02:44AM +0300, Mikko Rapeli wrote:
> 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.

No, if you run multiple copies of a static binary the code and readonly
data are shared between the processes, any data is shared copy-on-write.

The crunched programs are slightly smaller (since they don't need a PIC
libc), but the main benefit is the linker selecting the required parts
of libc for you.
For the install ramdisk there are 'small' versions of some functions
in a separate library - used to avoid getting bloat from libc.

        David

-- 
David Laight: david%l8s.co.uk@localhost