Re: What depends on slang?

[Michael Sobolev <mss@transas.com>]

On Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 12:29:16PM -0400, David Huggins-Daines wrote:
> > The reason I am asking is very simple: static linking to libnewt and libslang
> > adds only 60K to dbootstrap and whiptail.  Shared newt and slang libraries give
> > more than 400K.  As newt's use of slang is very special, when static linking
> > to both of them, libm just do not get it.  This is another 110K.
> 
> Hm, I'm not quite sure what you mean there.
I mean that slang has an interpreter or something that makes use of float
(double) type.  That makes every program that's dynamically linked to libslang
be referencing to libm:

$ dir dbootstrap
-rwxrwxr-x    1 mss      mss        110608 Апр 23 15:05 dbootstrap*
$ ldd ./dbootstrap
        libnewt.so.0.50 => /usr/lib/libnewt.so.0.50 (0x40019000)
        libslang.so.1 => /lib/libslang.so.1 (0x40027000)
        libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x40085000)
        libm.so.6 => /lib/libm.so.6 (0x40162000)
        libdl.so.2 => /lib/libdl.so.2 (0x40180000)
        /lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x40000000)

When I used newt and slang static libraries, I got:

$ dir dbootstrap
-rwxrwxr-x    1 mss      mss        172048 Апр 23 15:06 dbootstrap*
$ ldd ./dbootstrap

    libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x40019000)
    /lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x40000000)

Have I made my point more clear?

> Actually, that's why we have library reduction:
Yes, but as you see above, in the second case there is no need for libm any
more.  I doubt that library reduction would achieve this.

--
Mike