Re: Bug#757941: static linking: alternatives for glibc?

2014-10-21 Thread Aurelien Jarno
reassign 754813 libc6 reassign 757941 libc6 forcemerge 754813 757941 severity 754813 important retitle 754813 libc6 version 2.19 breaks NSS loading for static binaries forwarded 754813 https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17250 tag 754813 + upstream thanks On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 09:58:

Re: Bug#757941: static linking: alternatives for glibc?

2014-10-07 Thread Matthias Urlichs
Hi, Julian Taylor: > this is already the case with regular static linking, you don't need LTO > to remove unused code, the compiler only uses those objects from that > archive that are required to resolve all symbols. > … remove _some_ unused code. Lots of code the linker pulls in from gcc will n

Re: Bug#757941: static linking: alternatives for glibc?

2014-10-07 Thread Julian Taylor
On 07.10.2014 08:07, Paul Wise wrote: > On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Michael Tokarev wrote: > >> apps becomes huge in size > > I wonder if LTO would help with the size issues, theoretically all the > code from the static glibc that isn't used by busybox-static would be > stripped out of the re

Re: Bug#757941: static linking: alternatives for glibc?

2014-10-06 Thread Paul Wise
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Michael Tokarev wrote: > apps becomes huge in size I wonder if LTO would help with the size issues, theoretically all the code from the static glibc that isn't used by busybox-static would be stripped out of the resulting binaries. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debi

Re: Bug#757941: static linking: alternatives for glibc?

2014-10-06 Thread Michael Tokarev
07.10.2014 08:34, Steve Langasek wrote: [] >>> Was the removal of gethostby* APIs from the static glibc intentional? > >> Yes. It's the nsswitch problem. The behavior of those APIs is controlled >> by the nsswitch mechanism (specifically the hosts configuration), which is >> inherently dynamic a