[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAM2CaFLhqFTh9FkvaSehmwQ+7JLnohX9Qs8nWkv2UikRcBbH_w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 15:54:04 +0300
From: Boris Alesker <boris.alesker@...il.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Building libc separately from libm,librt,libpthread and others
Rich Felker dalias@...ifal.cx wote:
>What is your goal in getting it smaller? With static linking, only the
> object files needed by a program end up in the resulting binary, so
> compiling less will not make your binaries any smaller. The only
> benefits I can think of are (1) reducing time to compile musl, and (2)
> storing the development files on an extremely small storage device. If
> you tell us what you're trying to do, we can offer better advice on
> how to meet your needs.
Well, the intention is to use musl package with possible source code
modifications and platform specific optimizations as an implementation for
standard c library. These sources will be visible to 3rd party developers
wishing to use libc services.
1. This is the opportunity to ask whether MIT license allows to do that.
2. As the developers have the freedom to use any compiler /linker they
want, can I assume that only the required parts of the libc.a objects will
be included in the resulting executable ?
Content of type "text/html" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
