On 6/15/15 1:34 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
On Jun 14, 2015, at 20:53, Julian Elischer <jul...@freebsd.org> wrote:
On 6/14/15 10:48 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On 13 June 2015 at 18:22, Craig Rodrigues <rodr...@freebsd.org> wrote:
On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Adrian Chadd <adr...@freebsd.org> wrote:
I guarantee that no matter what you've worked on, there's
approximately five orders of magnitude of shipping devices whose
entire storage space can be measured in 1 digit megabytes. Each year.
(And yes - there's an appreciable set of them for which freebsd boots,
runs and keeps running on them.0
You can buy em too, some of them even under $60.
Can FreeBSD now not run on these systems because of libxo?
It's a tight squeeze as it is. Running in 8MB of flash (even if it's
compressed) is still an exercise in "what can you cut out."
My point isn't that it isn't running because of libxo; my point is
that arguing about "embedded" involving "lots of storage" is woefully
incorrect and will continue to be until those gigabytes of storage are
available for a penny. Which yes, I'm guessing will happen in my
career - but it's also quite likely code bloat will continue to chase
that upward.
do we have a WITHOUT_LIBXO option on sources? I believe we should..
+1. I would be more than happy to implement it by stubbing out the majority of
the macros to something less invasive, but it might be a bit before I do that.
Thanks,
but that wouldn't remove the bloat within the apps.. just make it use
null calls.
_______________________________________________
svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
