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=NHW5kxRkEdk7j2jnHY5WW3LtmjESKX5vkw+3epujNRE=;
	b=Vp2OjVao5tddbyDuVT6n3YZlbTgY883t69gynLzF8cEQN5SXAAI/hOV8BLjLqicu50
	sRfMMgZdXFLpfugRsR4BDEVJgnCzYZPV2YrIo3IphfgD5JxhydlZM+Q94MzHuPZG6VmV
	PgMFt1AuM1yBZb5ybsCSQ68m3Kf0s4PKgmBOs0TBGBBj7AtOjnEw+xQHfq3b6sSddUps
	cpmhUHyVDIKiMpj+UHUbhFKlP1LinnkKxGkAMJY3IPhVsrUD7osJ4prNj8yRLYmtRfp0
	Y3w3/WMUPiZeq7Sw9rmGk+3Pj6L6oDdzMl6twioCKzhwd950b/3Y4W4D/FJFuXb4Ytj6
	EdDQ==
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Received:	by 10.68.184.33 with SMTP id er1mr16302749pbc.151.1363887257585;
	Thu, 21 Mar 2013 10:34:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To:	<83d2usznat.fsf@gnu.org>
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>
	<83d2usznat DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org>
Date:	Thu, 21 Mar 2013 19:34:17 +0200
Message-ID:	<CAA2C=vDti9b_ADh7=2bpQmU2UpWaTWfEFJNJP+Rv8v=7OCvRog@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, Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT gnu DOT org> wrote:
>> Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 08:28:10 +0200
>> From: Ozkan Sezer <sezeroz AT gmail DOT com>
>>
>> libc is getting larger? Yes.  The problem is we are statically linking
>> to it and the final programs are larger.
>
> Do you have any numbers?  It would be good to know how large is
> "larger" for some real-life program.

No, I don't have numbers right at the moment

>
>> Besides, you know that you are not working with symlinks
>
> How do you know that?  If you use Bash, or some other program built
> with 2.04, they might create symlinks, and then you do have them.
>

And leaving such decisions to the user (developer) along with
some configurability would hurt??

> And even if you don't have even a single symlink, how much overhead do
> you get due to low-level functions probing for them?  Again, some
> performance numbers would be good.  E.g., how much longer does it take
> 'find' to traverse a given tree, when compiled with 2.04 vs 2.03?
>
>> and you don't need directory emulation,
>
> What's that?
>

Please grep include/libc/fd_props.h for FILE_DESC_DIRECTORY

>> and so forth, and adding in utterly unneeded overhead makes one (at
>> least me) feel embarrassed somehow.
>
> There's nothing to be embarrassed.  DJGPP is a Posix-compatible
> environment, so having Posix features is natural.
>

I am not embarrassed about djgpp being as it is and I think you aren't
reading me correctly at all. The thing I am saying is configurability,
e.g. by way of a djconfig.h header or a config.mak or something, may
help people when they need it.

--
O.S.

- Raw text -