uClibc-20060901 and binary size

nunash newnashworks at gmail.com
Tue Oct 24 00:34:39 UTC 2006


Any ideas?

Thanks
/kmk

On 10/21/06, nunash <newnashworks at gmail.com> wrote:
> Not sure yet but I think only when I link pthread the binaries seem
> to get bigger with uclibc snapshot...
>
> On 10/21/06, nunash <newnashworks at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I tried gcc-4.1.1 (arm-elf)/uclibc-snapshot combo. The binary size was
> > 311692. It appears that if I use uClibc-snapshot, it pulls in lot of symbols...
> >
> > On 10/21/06, nunash <newnashworks at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Some more information:
> > >
> > > I used pthread1.c example from
> > > http://yolinux.com/TUTORIALS/LinuxTutorialPosixThreads.html
> > >
> > > compilation flags; -Os -s -Wl,-elf2flt
> > >
> > > gcc 4.1.1/uclibc 0.9.28 - (arm-elf) : size = 64480 bytes
> > > gcc 3.4.6/uclibc-snapshot (armeb-linux-uclibc) : size = 315544 bytes
> > > gcc 3.4.6/uclibc-0.9.28 (armeb-linux-uclibc) : size = 70,780 bytes
> > >
> > > I've not tried gcc 4.1.1/uclibc-snapshot yet. With gcc 3.4.6 based
> > > toolchain, I simply switched between versions of uclibc. I did not
> > > change their configuration.
> > >
> > > I did enable "Strip binaries and executables' and "Compile all sources
> > > at once into an object" options in uclibc-snapshot configuration. If I
> > > remove those options, then the binary size 369KB.
> > >
> > > I can see it is pulling lot of symbols but I've not figured how to
> > > remove them. -s option does not seem to do anything?  tried
> > > -Wl,-elf2flt=v to check that.
> > >
> > > The .gdb file size is 3 times large in the case of uclibc-snapshot vs
> > > uclibc.0.9.28.
> > >
> > > thanks
> > > /kmk
> > >
> > > On 10/20/06, Khem Raj <kraj at mvista.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Oct 20, 2006, at 3:52 PM, nunash wrote:
> > > >
> > > > We have gcc 3.4.6 based toolchain built using buildroot. We used
> > > > uclibc-20060901. Everything statically built. No shared libraries at
> > > > all.
> > > >
> > > > I noticed the binary size of a particular program was unusually large
> > > > (369K) because I know that the codebase is small. So, I compiled the
> > > > same program using different toolchain (gcc 4.1.1, uclibc-0.9.28). The
> > > > new size was only 86K!!
> > > >
> > > > What is the size if you use gcc 4.1.1 based toolchain and current uclibc
> > > > snapshot.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Khem Raj <kraj at mvista.com>
> > > > MontaVista Software Inc.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>



More information about the uClibc mailing list