[uClibc] size difference between uclibc and glibc

Jun Sun jsun at junsun.net
Thu Jul 24 18:01:21 UTC 2003


On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 12:56:14PM -0600, Erik Andersen wrote:
> On Wed Jul 23, 2003 at 10:24:52AM -0700, Jun Sun wrote:
> > 
> > Can someone give an idea on what size difference it gives if I 
> > switch to use uclibc instead of glibc?  Also, probably a dumb question,
> > the applications should have the same size no matter what C library
> > you are using, correct?
> 
> There are a number of places where we do not inline functions,
> or where we use more compact preprocessor defines causing
> application programs to also be smaller and use less memory.
> 
> > If the later is true, it seems if your system has more applications then one 
> > would have less movtivation to use uclibc.
> > 
> > Size reduction seems to be the most bragging about point of uclibc.
> > This questions probably should be on FAQ. :)
> 
> Please feel free to provide any additions you think best....
> http://uclibc.org/FAQ.html
>

Here is one item I think should go to FAQ:

Q: What is the size difference between uclibc and glibc?

A: [Joseph Chiu]"My glibc shared libraries on MIPS total up to about 10.9 MB.  (Add another 9
MB for locale support.)  uClibc's shared libraries add up to a whopping 608
KB."

Different CPU architectures should see different numbers.  RISC CPUs should 
see numbers in about the same range while i386 might numbers a little over 
half of those.

Jun



More information about the uClibc mailing list