Powerpc-eabi, bootstrap compilers...
Fri Oct 19 05:26:00 GMT 2001
> Given the ever-decreasing cost of both RAM and disk storage and the ever-
> increasing presence of broadband connections these days, the cost-benefit
> ratio of smaller files as against all this grief and potential reinstall-
> from-a-system-disk-ness the dynamic linking causes has IMO shifted so far as
> to make dynamic linking a total albatross. I'm sticking with static. I
> don't really understand why there is a trend toward increasing amounts of
> dynamic linking (e.g. libgcc) in the direction gcc development is taking.
Well, using Glibc the smallest static executables (think ln,
ls, cat, that sort of things) average 240K instead of +-
20K, so my /usr/bin would suddenly grow from 350Mb or so...
How many executables are there on an average system? :-)
Now, maybe the real problem is the bloat in Glibc, but then
the Glibc people will tell you that it's not a real problem
considering space is so cheap *and* it's shared... ack.
Want more information? See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/
Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to firstname.lastname@example.org
More information about the crossgcc