[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130719203923.1a411332@ralda.gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 20:39:23 +0200
From: Harald Becker <ralda@....de>
Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com, dalias@...ifal.cx
Subject: Re: Current status: important changes since 0.9.11
Hi Rich !
> Oh, and the new crt1.c idea could probably go in too, even
> though it won't be used much yet except possibly adding PIE
> support on mips, powerpc, and microblaze.
I looked at your new crt1.c and I like it. Why not using it for
main stream purpose if it works for all purposes? Are there any
troubles or caveats except a few bytes more (and some nanoseconds
of extra CPU time on program startup)? This doesn't look so
critical. It seams more to me, you need to look for stuff not
needed to be linked in, especially for carefully written and
statically linked small programs, using only base functions. IMO
there shall be a possibility to get those programs smaller (not
linking in some unused library stuff). The few bytes more of
startup code doesn't really matter for this, and you save a lot
of work, when only using one kind of startup routines.
So I would convert all versions to new startup type, then do
testing and push it in release. With a possible backup directory
(unmaintained) for old startup routines (in case anybody needs).
If no one complains, remove this backup directory in next release
or one after.
Just my cent on this topic. As I'm a programmer who like to
create small statically linked programs.
--
Harald
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.
