| 1 |
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Marc Stürmer <mail@×××××××××××××.de> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Am 28.09.2014 10:44, schrieb Jorge Almeida: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> I'm having a somewhat disgusting issue on my Gentoo: binaries are |
| 5 |
>> unaccountably large. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Really? Who cares. Storage is so cheap nowadays, that that kind of "bloat" |
| 9 |
> simply doesn't matter on normal deskop computers anymore. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Embedded systems though are a different cup of coffee. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I think it would be useful to actually understand what is going on |
| 15 |
here, assuming it isn't a mistake of some kind. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
And storage isn't as cheap as some make it out to be. Sure, spinning |
| 18 |
disks are pretty cheap, but embedded systems are always constrained, |
| 19 |
SSDs aren't so cheap, and in-RAM space used by a binary is always a |
| 20 |
concern. Even if you have plenty of system RAM, excessive RAM use by |
| 21 |
a binary means poor processor cache utilization. L1/L2 cache is still |
| 22 |
measured in kilobytes to this day, and L3 is measured in MB. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Besides, if we don't actually know why there is a difference there is |
| 25 |
no way to know that the compiler isn't doing more than just waste |
| 26 |
memory. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Rich |
Archives