iB::Topic::Would it be time for DSL to shed its skin?

	Damn Small Linux :: Damn Small Linux Board The DSL Forums

» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Damn Small Linux Board » Non-DSL Topics » water cooler » Would it be time for DSL to shed its skin?

		Mini-ITX Boards Sale, Fanless BareBones Mini-ITX, Bootable 1G DSL USBs, 533MHz Fanless PC <-- SALE $200 each!
		Get The Official Damn Small Linux Book. DSL Market , Great VPS hosting provided by Tektonic

Pages: (8) </ 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 >/

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Topic: Would it be time for DSL to shed its skin?, some ideas

< Next Oldest | Next Newest >

curaga

Group: Members
Posts: 2163
Joined: Feb. 2007

Posted: July 18 2007,18:12

on the other hand, I'm good at building Xorg. So you can have Firefox and I'll take X..

florian: that would be ideal, but since programs hard-code glibc into /lib/libc.so, which will be uclibc and thus cannot be made a link to glibc, wouldn't work...

--------------
There's no such thing as life. Those mean little jocks invented it ;)
-
Windows is not a virus. A virus does something!

florian

Group: Members
Posts: 66
Joined: Dec. 2006

Posted: July 18 2007,18:41

I still think that if DSL goes with a uclib base, MyDSL should provide glibc.unc for users that needs compatibility with legacy extensions

When compiling extension and base program for "uclib DSL", we should make sure to link to /lib/uclibc.so

The compatibility glibc.unc extension could create /lib/libc.so that the legacy MyDSL programs use.

-Florian

curaga

Group: Members
Posts: 2163
Joined: Feb. 2007

Posted: July 18 2007,18:49

@florian: you're missing the point. If the link was replaced to another libc, only static and programs compiled for that libc would work. So after using that only the old extensions would work, not even tar or ls or any basic util would be available...

As libc.so is a shared library, programs load it everytime the programs are loaded..

@stupid_idiot: which target triplet and optimizations did you use?
As it's gonna be built from ground up, we should do everything we can to improve performance & size (triplet should be i486-pc-linux-uclibc, best optimization IMO would be "-Os -march=i486 -mtune=i686 -fomit-frame-pointer"

--------------
There's no such thing as life. Those mean little jocks invented it ;)
-
Windows is not a virus. A virus does something!

florian

Group: Members
Posts: 66
Joined: Dec. 2006

Posted: July 18 2007,21:22

@Curaga: I think you missed my point in previous point as I never spoke about a symbolic link in my previous post

My point is that compilation should always explicitely define the uclibc name by uclib.so (can be done in gcc using something like -nodefaultlibs or -nostdlib flag). This is an hassle but this is the only way to ensure backward compatibility! .

This way legacy extensions would access libc.so from the glibc.unc MyDSL compatibility extension, while core apps and newly "properly" compiled extension would still work against uclib.so

-Florian

stupid_idiot Offline

Group: Members
Posts: 344
Joined: Oct. 2006

Posted: July 18 2007,23:15

Quote (curaga @ July 18 2007,22:49)

@stupid_idiot: which target triplet and optimizations did you use?
As it's gonna be built from ground up, we should do everything we can to improve performance & size (triplet should be i486-pc-linux-uclibc, best optimization IMO would be "-Os -march=i486 -mtune=i686 -fomit-frame-pointer"

In previous times, I did use the same flags you suggested.
Sadly, the additional optimized code from '-march' and '-mtune' increases the size of binaries somewhat. So does '-fomit-frame-pointer' - 'libwxgtk1.uci' is 2.0M with fp omitted and 1.8M without. So it led to me cheating; the added convenience doesn't hurt neither - I just use '-Os'.
That is when compiling libraries.
When compiling binaries, I also use
'-fdata-sections -ffunctions'
and
LDFLAGS='-Wl,--gc-sections'.

With buildroot, I used the default suggested CFLAGS:
"-Os -pipe"
Unfortunately, what buildroot does is prepend these flags to the command line. So it tends to get overridden by the default flags ('-O2 -something -something') of the packages. I am sure there is an easy way, somewhere, around this.

37 replies since July 13 2007,18:11

< Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Pages: (8) </ 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 >/

Damn Small Linux Board » Non-DSL Topics » water cooler » Would it be time for DSL to shed its skin?