@kodabb I don't think it's a problem to satisfy @laurentbercot's request, but 3% in static libc size is prob. <0.1% final static binary size
-
-
Replying to @RichFelker
@RichFelker Depends on the size of binaries. I usually make *very* small binaries, where the proportional increase is likely bigger.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @laurentbercot
@laurentbercot@RichFelker can you please provide a benchmark about it? Sounds strange to have such impact...1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @lu_zero_
@lu_zero_@laurentbercot PIC is historically quite costly on some targets, but better now.3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RichFelker
@lu_zero_@laurentbercot Part is gcc badness (using fixed reg for GOT rather than a pseudo, etc.) and gcc is getting better.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RichFelker
@lu_zero_@laurentbercot Part is the badness of the PLT ABI constraints; see http://ewontfix.com/18/ . Visibility or -fno-plt can help here.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@lu_zero_ @laurentbercot In @musllibc we're using protected visibility (conditionally if supported) to make PLT ABI a non-issue.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.