X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id
	:subject:from:to:content-type;
	bh=rW8L5nfXXhsPEuLe/WKXo4GG79KJcyHLWEG7ycVGxRI=;
	b=TrB5yQR2MuA+sN4BK4UI16CighzyLZCTUFJxHuXOjdzbXz3CbRM25kmQ0H9m7V7apU
	QmmzY2xetiX/zKa9q8rFDz9j8Z6LOEW0OniLfUlG/yhY8VWOwNO86gzUJ28cZkbRc+yT
	Q0GPdRR47c8fP/Oy2PK9J9xzeBKcrRGlEAgG/23nKPfWoecOKYpwpVqcajRi1Q0f0mVS
	WJQrA/GxRk1IGjQX/ifF4TRgYnJTNH18f5n31u+hRCyQFxxxyTvJaM1ZR0PfjHb3twpO
	L/96ppijM7nAsomuszPQtzJuHYz4EMHV8fI6V+1AQrj7+jWj244jk4Y8u1ACzkKYyrv3
	8t4w==
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Received:	by 10.66.185.81 with SMTP id fa17mr16011396pac.46.1363886346002;
	Thu, 21 Mar 2013 10:19:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To:	<CAA-ihx_RNBVRbBiu0WYEfY6=AHMLX88aKwKJoeNOUto01uzczQ@mail.gmail.com>
References:	<5140A042 DOT 9050805 AT iki DOT fi>
	<CAA2C=vB08rhgRyL-WX+vgXQKxkh4-bXxYZRG+8NyL1HzaUKafA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<CAA-ihx-wzMncQTikJZ2yFuSCzz4ebBUneNcm5iO4DygvL519aw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<CAA2C=vAk6h+ko+RRgnp-JXX68G1cJKxGxp=ACQCNcdZcBymgQw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<CAA-ihx_RNBVRbBiu0WYEfY6=AHMLX88aKwKJoeNOUto01uzczQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
Date:	Thu, 21 Mar 2013 19:19:05 +0200
Message-ID:	<CAA2C=vAVbJ_DzvT0Bc0irtnfnKehsisPqgR=WYs7wtEne+dghA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	Re: About new DJGPP v2.04 beta
From:	Ozkan Sezer <sezeroz AT gmail DOT com>
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On 3/21/13, Rugxulo <rugxulo AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 1:28 AM, Ozkan Sezer <sezeroz AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:47 AM, Rugxulo <rugxulo AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 3:54 AM, Ozkan Sezer <sezeroz AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 5:50 PM, Andris Pavenis <andris DOT pavenis AT iki DOT fi>
>>>> wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> It would have been very nice if the src were made somehow configurable
>>>> to leave out undesired features, e.g. symlinks getting in the way upon
>>>> every fopen() & co, FILE_DESC_DIRECTORY, and the likes.
>>>
>>> Why? Is there a bug resulting from this? Is it too slow? Or are you
>>> just unhappy that the libc is slightly larger?
>>
>> libc is getting larger? Yes.  The problem is we are statically linking
>> to it and the final programs are larger.
>
> UPX mostly offsets that size increase, believe it or not. And I've not

Well, I am most certainly not interested in any lame bandaids,
not at all

And I am not pushing for anything either, I can edit the library myself
to the same effect. The only thing I am saying is that it would be easier
and nicer if it would were mainline already.

Therefore you needn't convince me to turn to other solutions :)

> seen a lot of people using DXE3 or DJELF either. It's "mostly" just
> more trouble than it's worth.
>
>> Besides, you know that you
>> are not working with symlinks, and you don't need directory emulation,
>> and so forth, and adding in utterly unneeded overhead makes one (at
>> least me) feel embarrassed somehow.
>
> I know you know that symlinks can be useful sometimes, even for DOS,
> e.g. when needing a 8.3 alias for a LFN .ZIP file that is too big to
> have separate copies of.
>
> Yes, the libc could be slimmed, and I've wanted to dig in myself and
> see if I could do it, but so far I haven't (too many other little
> projects). Not that I have half a clue either, though.  ;-)
>
> I know this isn't exactly what you meant, but the only thing I'm
> embarrassed by is the lack of use of DJGPP in the world at large. It
> may not be latest tech, but it's still very well made and highly
> useful.
>

Most certainly yes, it is highly useful: I am not denying it and I doubt
that anyone is/will be trying to do so.

--
O.S.

- Raw text -