Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2013/03/21/13:20:14
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 -