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=QOh7LiRg8lhAfVrWqbAWikIsUhl5Z9Y2uM6X3VvtaZU=;
	b=U8u5bLzHbKhrtvemf7x1TY2QM5eEgeDNwW2r0gbNHuN4/fwTz7AbrROnQPVIVFzwFy
	If+NVdThkghVZf5aLWR0+0W/n4VaPj+NQp8+urB5Ddm5tebe/3TcPLh4rB+oYUy1obO2
	oXRq95m8rh3oLz6Qr4295zqCq/NY1IwHVJPSDnBxm0dW3n7HyK5MiQoySERo5c/x2i44
	W8vB/dS2w0pChEZ5q0vxFgtFXvBPa4uP0X5sNrFPP9hJI8W29wPdiCxuexG0OHlPWEit
	knhLR4AGbE+QjyQ3W1b1i9BAOO1TDlX889opYZ9cQq1LEu0pbaEsTfVpV/IUYjPbBMgj
	53hQ==
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Received:	by 10.68.218.166 with SMTP id ph6mr13507599pbc.33.1363847290816;
	Wed, 20 Mar 2013 23:28:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To:	<CAA-ihx-wzMncQTikJZ2yFuSCzz4ebBUneNcm5iO4DygvL519aw@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>
Date:	Thu, 21 Mar 2013 08:28:10 +0200
Message-ID:	<CAA2C=vAk6h+ko+RRgnp-JXX68G1cJKxGxp=ACQCNcdZcBymgQw@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 Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:47 AM, Rugxulo <rugxulo AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 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.  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.

--
O.S.

- Raw text -