Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 19:29:41 -0800 From: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> To: David Chisnall <theraven@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Allan Jude <allanjude@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Massive libxo-zation that breaks everything Message-ID: <20150304032941.GA92784@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <B38C4D7E-05DC-4D35-A650-37A466FF9508@FreeBSD.org> References: <54F34B6E.2040809@astrodoggroup.com> <CAG=rPVfcB1Fy_8mHq-t5Ay07yrzuSGthQ0ZcGzvp0XG9gSSzkg@mail.gmail.com> <54F35F29.4000603@astrodoggroup.com> <54F429EF.5050400@freebsd.org> <54F46536.8040607@mu.org> <54F4C03F.7030704@freebsd.org> <54F4FECB.90501@freebsd.org> <54F504EF.3030303@freebsd.org> <54F50F15.4050300@freebsd.org> <B38C4D7E-05DC-4D35-A650-37A466FF9508@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 09:09:43AM +0000, David Chisnall wrote: > > If your argument is about binary size, then it would be relatively > easy for us to add a version of libxo for static linking into the > versions in /rescue that only supported plain-text output, but > again, please quantify your objections: What is the size increase > that you're seeing and what kind of devices is this causing a problem for? > Well, since you asked, with libxo -rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel - 20104 Mar 3 19:16 w* dynamic -rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel - 1011688 Mar 3 19:17 w* static without libxo -rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel - 16856 Mar 3 19:18 w* dynamic -rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel - 974680 Mar 3 19:19 w* static 3.17 kB dynamic 36.14 kB static The output from w is fairly simple compared to what ifconfig or netstat or vmstat or ps or any number of other utilities generated. The use of libxo may have an impact on embedded systems with limited resources. Too bad the libxo supporters did not do the damage with a WITH_LIBXO knob. -- Steve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20150304032941.GA92784>