[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: uclibc
Subject: [uClibc] size difference between uclibc and glibc
From: jsun () junsun ! net (Jun Sun)
Date: 2003-07-24 12:01:10
Message-ID: 20030724180121.GA11952 () gateway ! junsun ! net
[Download RAW message or body]
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 12:56:14PM -0600, Erik Andersen wrote:
> On Wed Jul 23, 2003 at 10:24:52AM -0700, Jun Sun wrote:
> >
> > Can someone give an idea on what size difference it gives if I
> > switch to use uclibc instead of glibc? Also, probably a dumb question,
> > the applications should have the same size no matter what C library
> > you are using, correct?
>
> There are a number of places where we do not inline functions,
> or where we use more compact preprocessor defines causing
> application programs to also be smaller and use less memory.
>
> > If the later is true, it seems if your system has more applications then one
> > would have less movtivation to use uclibc.
> >
> > Size reduction seems to be the most bragging about point of uclibc.
> > This questions probably should be on FAQ. :)
>
> Please feel free to provide any additions you think best....
> http://uclibc.org/FAQ.html
>
Here is one item I think should go to FAQ:
Q: What is the size difference between uclibc and glibc?
A: [Joseph Chiu]"My glibc shared libraries on MIPS total up to about 10.9 MB. (Add another 9
MB for locale support.) uClibc's shared libraries add up to a whopping 608
KB."
Different CPU architectures should see different numbers. RISC CPUs should
see numbers in about the same range while i386 might numbers a little over
half of those.
Jun
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic