[BL] /lib/cpp error compiling in BL2 with libc-2.2.5 upgrade
sindi keesan
keesan at sdf.lonestar.org
Mon Jan 9 01:25:14 EST 2006
On Sun, 8 Jan 2006, David Moberg wrote:
> sindi keesan wrote:
>
>> You compiled it on a computer with SW91 solibs and SW71 glibc?
>
> Yes. But the requirement for SW91 solibs defeats the whole
> purpose of mixing the two versions. It would be better to use
> both SW91 solibs and glibc, as the SW91 glibc is much
> smaller.
glibc glibcso binutils (g)make egcs/gcc+gcc-g++
7.1 2.1.2 22M 750K 1.5M 278K 2.95.2 3.1MB
8.1 2.2.5 24M 1.3M 2.4M 303K 2.95.3 1.7+1.8=3.5MB
9.1 2.3.2 14M ! 1.0M 3.1M 342K 3.2.3 3.4M+4.5M=7.9M
I can't see any reason not to upgrade to SW91 glibc. How did they
actually get it smaller?
I had to upgrade to SW81 binutils to get 'as' to work.
An extra 600 to upgrade to SW91 binutils.
Why has gcc become so much larger? I save 8MB by upgrading glibc, then
lose 5MB by upgrading gcc, from SW71 to SW91?
>
>> Can I compile for SW91 solibs (dynamically) if I have that plus an earlier
>> glibc, having first deleted glibc, installed the later solibs, then
>> reinstalled glibc older than the solibs?
>
> I guess so. I installed the two libraries in the opposite order: SW71
> glibc first, then SW91 solibs.
I will switch to SW91 glibc 2.3.2. And use precompiled gcc 3.2.3.
>>> glibc-2.3 solibs is only 150k larger than glibc-2.1.
Did I read this wrong? I copied down 1024K (2.3.2) vis 757K (2.1.3)
Closer to 275K.
>> It is the full glibc which is a lot bigger.
>
> glibc-2.3 full glibc is much smaller than glibc-2.1 full glibc.
8MB smaller, amazingly. Did they leave out older hardware?
> David
> _______________________________________________
> BasLinux mailing list
> BasLinux at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/baslinux
>
keesan at sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
More information about the BasLinux
mailing list