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=wrtpzKDl9jOUMXw0M68tJ4x68bS4QTsn74x6955ryFo=;
	b=sFlC/SHChWhWoZQIUvDtSb+NKmjkMd4KWD09HWB7oC7ZNWgYdy37+OHrqs2/fDfmJ/
	ITcDoZ/S6a92azlWnzciCVb3+3QWNTQBHglIkzOnRVEoduCEfhslPzBpV6GRbKDuUhsz
	IyVaHcAWJw8/4KcgF+amOV9D3lUbm5zKTpfMtCAFQgl8klwYRMcWs3aaixC1VKbXEPnc
	/8Ip0RMBq6gJtrGcYB/lCvGaLvM70bm8neO1cPNyT55oTWpFegmoiSOpeyFEgsgLVpX6
	QEiJ/D9/sJgx3dZ0gOE2h86ywIh+DEcyp4ZxmVx3ojjRwf/Cohoqh25QMnjRAb5LdOLQ
	6Bhg==
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Received:	by 10.60.31.170 with SMTP id b10mr7339267oei.34.1363885845934;
	Thu, 21 Mar 2013 10:10:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To:	<CAA2C=vAk6h+ko+RRgnp-JXX68G1cJKxGxp=ACQCNcdZcBymgQw@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>
Date:	Thu, 21 Mar 2013 12:10:45 -0500
Message-ID:	<CAA-ihx_RNBVRbBiu0WYEfY6=AHMLX88aKwKJoeNOUto01uzczQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	Re: About new DJGPP v2.04 beta
From:	Rugxulo <rugxulo 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

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
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.

- Raw text -