On Friday, 10 February 2012, Christian Neukirchen <chneukirc...@gmail.com> wrote: > Anselm R Garbe <garb...@gmail.com> writes: > >> On 9 February 2012 10:16, Hadrian Węgrzynowski <hadr...@hawski.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 20:15:52 +0100 >>> Anselm R Garbe <garb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>Btw. I would like you to use C and rc, not C and bash or something >>>>similar. >>> >>> There were once discussion about "blessed" rc version, but AFAIR there >>> were no simple conclusion. What version of rc is good enough? >>> What I remember: Byron's version is cursed and p9p version is too big. >>> So which one is good? >> >> Of course >> >> http://tools.suckless.org/9base > > This one is even more bloated than the others: > > text data bss dec hex filename > 77360 632 7496 85488 14df0 /home/chris/src/rc-1.7.1/rc-static-musl > 81682 2088 6344 90114 16002 /home/chris/src/rc-1.7.1/rc-dyn-glibc > 116849 3520 18272 138641 21d91 /opt/plan9/bin/rc-dyn-glibc > 154252 4480 20120 178852 2baa4 /home/chris/src/9base/rc/rc-static-musl > 862556 8176 28824 899556 db9e4 /hom e/chris/src/9base/rc/rc-static-glibc > > (Yes, the statically linked musl version is smaller than the dynamically > linked glibc version of the same program.)
You are comparing Byrons rc rape with the original rc of 9base here? If so then this is kind of apples and oranges. Byrons rc was written for lunix environments and Posix, whereas the original rc was in use on Plan 9. So not a surprise that Byrons version is a bit smaller as a static binary on yet another lunix box. Cheers Anselm
