Rob Landley schrieb: > On Friday 10 October 2008 12:07:52 walter harms wrote: >> Bernhard Reutner-Fischer schrieb: >>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 04:21:51PM +0200, Loïc Grenié wrote: >>>> I've noticed that busybox uses few functions from libm. >>> Actually, you can turn off ASH_MATH_SUPPORT_64 FEATURE_AWK_MATH and >>> you don't need libm at all. >>> >>>> I've written some replacements for those functions. Right >>>> now this is just the test program and I've not made the >>>> effort of including them in Busybox. However I'd like to >>>> have your opinion: would it be a good idea to include >>>> them ? >>> I don't think so (but perhaps vda likes it anyway). Just: >>> 1) turn off the abovementioned two features >>> or, if either of that is really needed desperately, you can >>> 2a) link busybox statically (very likely in the scenarios you mention >>> below) >>> 2b) Use a trimmed libm which only contains those few functions that will >>> be needed by your initramfs (usually 0, see #1 above). >>> >>>> They are neither very fast nor very precise (the >>>> trigonometric functions are awful, up to 16 bits are >>>> false) but libm is rather large and usually a user of >>>> Busybox on an initrd or embedded platform does not >>>> need neither speed nor excellent precision. Otherwise >>> I think that neither of them need ASH_MATH_SUPPORT_64 FEATURE_AWK_MATH, >>> so busybox wouldn't link against libm anyway. >> Hi Bernhard, >> you are right but the idea is nice and we do not have a lot of libm >> functions. >> >> Perhaps we can put these functions on the bb webpage ? > > Well, considering uclibc.org is the same server as busybox, they sort of > already are. > no problem with that but it goes beyond what i intended with that. Perhaps someone else from ulibc would like to continue that work maybe loic will.
>> We should add something like supplements/unsupported stuff to keep good >> idea that are not incorporate for one reason or an other. > > Whatever happened to "simple"? Small, simple, not having 8 gazillion #ifdefs > like the gnu bloatware that takes all day to figure out what code connects to > what and which of the conflicting implementations for any given chunk of > functionality winds up being used... > > I liked simple. i do not understand. we all like the "simple" stuff else we would write bloaty-clicky-bunty stuff that needs 3GHz just to start. Sometimes people post ideas that do not fit exactly into busysbox (like this libm stuff). It is a valid idea. it is a good idea. BUT I (am not the maintainer) would not include it because there is already a libm and it is not my "job" to optimize it. The maintainer could add #ifdef avoid_libm but that leads to the #ifdef forest you (and most others) would like to avoid. Still it is a good idea, so why not store it somewhere ? space is cheap this days. maybe someone else (e.g. the ulibc guys) will pick it up, incorporated and expand it. IMHO the most easy solution for everyone. re, wh _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
