On 1/23/12 1:12 AM, Jonathan Andrews wrote:
> I needed a statically linked bash for testing an arm board. I did not
> expect it to be nearly 3MB though ! It surprises me that a statically
> linked bash is bigger than the entire busybox binary i've compiled, or
> my kernel image for that matter. Is this bloat gcc, some failing of the
> linker or bash itself?
That's probably the size of the C library on your machine. The only
difference between a static bash and a `normal' bash is that the system
libraries are linked in instead of being dynamically linked at run time.
I built a minimal bash (--enable-minimal-config) on my machine (Mac OS X,
where static linking isn't possible), and it ended up being about half
as big as a bash-4.2.20 build. I had to fix a few things to do it.
Chet
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, ITS, CWRU c...@case.edu http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/
