From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 17 23:22:25 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BBA11AB; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 23:22:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ian@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org (mho-03-ewr.mailhop.org [204.13.248.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F9902CFC; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 23:22:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from c-24-8-230-52.hsd1.co.comcast.net ([24.8.230.52] helo=damnhippie.dyndns.org) by mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1VM4bA-000NIQ-2n; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 23:22:24 +0000 Received: from [172.22.42.240] (revolution.hippie.lan [172.22.42.240]) by damnhippie.dyndns.org (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r8HNMKCQ014332; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 17:22:20 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from ian@FreeBSD.org) X-Mail-Handler: Dyn Standard SMTP by Dyn X-Originating-IP: 24.8.230.52 X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/sendlabs/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information) X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX1/xexl1oqcMCXPbXr+YVz3q Subject: Re: -ffunction-sections, -fdata-sections and -Wl,--gc-sections From: Ian Lepore To: Adrian Chadd In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 17:22:20 -0600 Message-ID: <1379460140.1197.59.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.1 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Ed Schouten , FreeBSD Current , Matthew Fleming X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 23:22:25 -0000 On Tue, 2013-09-17 at 14:56 -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote: > ... I'd rather see if we can actually separate out things some more so > these builds can shrink. > > Eg, if there's malloc related functions that aren't used, maybe we should > break malloc down into a directory full of functions. > Why is that better than using this automated solution? -- Ian