On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 18:39:33 +0800 Kang-Che Sung <explore...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was curious. Is there a reason for BusyBox's bloat-o-meter script not to > keep in sync with the version that comes in the Linux kernel source? > > I occasionally use the bloat-o-meter from the Linux kernel to compare even > BusyBox binaries. There shouldn't be any functional differences between the > two versions. IIRC the variant living in the kernel does not handle symbol aliases properly and uses nm(1). Our variant uses readelf(1) and works also for code that uses aliases, like your favourite libc and other such binaries. The choice from using the max 80 char width comes from a time where we did not usually add the bloat-o-meter output to commit messages, but i agree that we should shorten it to silence the patch checkers. I like Dietmars suggestion to keep the numbers aligned. What is missing in our variant is support for -p "ARCH-PREFIX-" for readelf. Should probably switch to argparse too. HTH _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
