On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Florian Fainelli <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tuesday 25 September 2012 18:42:05 Rich Felker wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 02:06:04PM +0200, Florian Fainelli wrote: >> > From: Felix Fietkau <[email protected]> >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Felix Fietkau <[email protected]> >> > --- >> > Makefile.flags | 2 +- >> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/Makefile.flags b/Makefile.flags >> > index e77c0e5..f129cef 100644 >> > --- a/Makefile.flags >> > +++ b/Makefile.flags >> > @@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-fno-builtin-strlen -finline- > limit=0 -fomit-frame-poi >> > # -fno-guess-branch-probability: prohibit pseudo-random guessing >> > # of branch probabilities (hopefully makes bloatcheck more stable): >> > CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-fno-guess-branch-probability,) >> > -CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-funsigned-char -static-libgcc,) >> > +CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-funsigned-char,) >> >> On most systems this flag should be a no-op, but when it's not, you >> definitely want it. Using shared libgcc might save a tiny amount of >> space in the binary, but it will add 4-8k of memory usage to each >> instance of busybox at runtime. This is not a reasonable tradeoff. > > Ok, so maybe we should make this available via some configuration knob? For > sure, we'd like to save the space involved by using a statically linked libgcc > to busybox. What do you think?
What difference do you see in binary size with/without this option? _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
