[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Patches] Any remaining uses of option groups?
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [Patches] Any remaining uses of option groups?
- From: Abdoulaye Walsimou Gaye <awg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 22:23:14 +0200
On 06/13/2013 10:15 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
My previous message removing a bitrotten and ill-conceived option group
<http://www.eglibc.org/archives/patches/msg01257.html> did not elicit any
responses expressing interest in option groups at all. So, I now ask:
does anyone have a current use case for the option groups feature? That
is, is there still any significant use of EGLIBC in building new embedded
GNU/Linux systems that are so space-constrained that the few MB taken up
by all the EGLIBC shared libraries put together is so significant that the
limited proportion of that space that can be saved through option groups
Please do not remove this still useful feature (including --disable-versioning),
which makes embedded systems developers use eglibc rather than glibc.
Yes even now days space matter. Many embedded systems do NOT have now
days smartphones specs.
They usually have _less_ than 128MB of ram/32MB of ROM storage
(and I worked on linux devices with less than that).
How many time at work, we were requested to study reduction of BOM cost.
Yes even 0.5$ of BOM cost down matter for an embedded system, and being
able to reduce memory footprint helped a lot.
On such systems, we do not care about about versioning, we upgrade all the
system firmware at once, so yes --disable-versioning is useful.
That said, unfortunately I can't see any slot of my time for the coming months
to actively work, as you required, on having this merged in glibc.
Patches mailing list