[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Patches] Any remaining uses of option groups?
- To: OndÅej BÃlka <neleai@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [Patches] Any remaining uses of option groups?
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 16:06:57 +0000
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013, Ondrej Bilka wrote:
> When you want to reduce memory footprint one argument is that you should
> use generic solution.
> You could use tool that traverses system and looks for unused symbols in
> all libraries and strips them.
EGLIBC already has local changes to install the intermediate files needed
for relinking (in a form suitable for use by Debian mklibs, at least).
Although I also doubt that's useful any more (the original motivation for
tools like mklibs was boot floppies for GNU/Linux system installation),
those changes are far less of a problem for merges than the option groups
changes, and so less important to merge to glibc or revert (although the
assumption is still that all changes should be merged to glibc or
reverted, and that if you care about some of the changes in EGLIBC then
you should help picking them up to merge into glibc).
Joseph S. Myers
Patches mailing list