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
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 09:08:28AM +0800, Jeff Chua wrote:
>
> "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?
Strip them? DWARF-2 debug information is bigger, that's all.
>
>
> 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.
> >
>
>
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer