This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Results with glibc-2.2.92
- From: Jeff Chua <jchua at fedex dot com>
- To: Frédéric L. W. Meunier <0 at pervalidus dot net>
- Cc: libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 09:08:28 +0800 (SGT)
- Subject: Re: Results with glibc-2.2.92
"ls -l" size of libc-2.2.5.so is doubled, even "size" stays about the
same. Is that anything that can be done to reduce the "ls" size of the
gcc3.2 compiled glibc2.25 libraries?
gcc3.2-glib2.25# size libc-2.2.5.so
text data bss dec hex filename
1115502 21456 16672 1153630 119a5e libc-2.2.5.so
gcc3.2-glib2.25# ls -l libc-2.2.5.so
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 10146603 Aug 23 13:15 libc-2.2.5.so
gcc2.95.3-glib2.25# size libc-2.2.5.so
text data bss dec hex filename
1150697 23072 16704 1190473 122a49 libc-2.2.5.so
gcc2.95.3-glib2.25# ls -l libc-2.2.5.so
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 5099676 Aug 22 08:29 libc-2.2.5.so
Thanks,
Jeff
[ jchua@fedex.com ]
On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, [ISO-8859-1] Frédéric L. W. Meunier wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
>
> > Frédéric L. W. Meunier wrote:
> >
> > > 2.2.92 was compiled with GCC 3.2.
> > >
> > > Is the size expected ?
> > >
> > > libc.so 11023486
> > > libc-2.2.5.so 5000557
> >
> > Use the size command. I get for the last 2.2.5 version from Red Hat:
> >
> > 1227209 19300 16832 1263341 1346ed /lib/i686/libc.so.6
>
> 1136209 23016 16608 1175833 11f119 /lib/libc.so.6
>
> > With the new code in our most recent beta release:
> >
> > 1130811 17740 17700 1166251 11cbab /lib/i686/libc.so.6
>
> 1097503 18300 17668 1133471 114b9f libc.so
>
> > I.e., glibc 2.3 is about 100k smaller. This is with a
> > different compiler and a lot of internal optimization and
> > despite of adding more functionality.
>
> OK. BTW, what will happen to 2.2.6 ? A maintenance release ? I
> read something on the libc-hackers archives.
>