linking statically against dietlibc: a blocker?

[Enrico Scholz]

peter at thecodergeek.com (Peter Gordon) writes:

> Firstly, shared libraries mean that only that specific library needs
> to be rebuild for any updates.

not relevant for the mentioned packages. They use only some syscalls
from libc and almost all logic is implemented in the programs self.


> Secondly, static libraries (as I understand their workings) are stored
> in memory with the binary image of the program that is running. This
> leads to (theoretically) multiple copies of that library wasting memory
> space needlessly.

Typical glibc propaganda... Numbers [1] show that some dietlibc
linked programs need only 10% of (non-shareable) memory than the
glibc counterpart.

glibc's dynamic loader needs more instructions and memory at startup
than the whole dietlibc-built program during its whole lifetime.



Enrico

Footnotes: 
[1]  https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-February/msg01842.html