Re: ctype, chrtbl, rune tables and POSIX2008

[Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost>]

On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 09:49:20PM +0000, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> hi,
> 
> > On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 12:11:57AM +0000, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> >> your suggestion is to add xlocale without uselocale, right?
> > 
> > Yes.
> 
> i'm not sure if it's a good idea because
> 
> - uselocale is acutally being used by third party code in the wild.
> 
> - uselocale is in standard.
> 
> - sometimes uselocale is the only choice.
>   eg. when calling a library which internally uses locale-sensitive functions.

The problem is that it adds the TLS access overhead for all the
locale-sensitive functions. Further complications are added by VAX and
Sun2 still not supporting TLS. It seems like a strong hack around for
broken code.

> >> is the rest of his patch ok for you?
> > 
> > Looking at the latest version, I don't agree with using _ all over the
> > place. I think it would help to clean up dead code first -- is there a
> > good reason for keeping CITRUS optional? Getting rid of that helps for
> > all the patches in the area (ctype, multi-locale etc). After having only
> > a single implementation, we can easily go over each function set and
> > merge it individually.
> 
> the size of libc is the only reason to have it optional i'm aware of.
> but i even don't know how much it makes libc smaller/bigger.

joerg@britannica:/tmp/with-citrus$ size libc.so.12.179 
   text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
1136427   47232   65752 1249411  131083 libc.so.12.179

joerg@britannica:/tmp/without-citrus$ size libc.so.12.179 
   text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
1101773   41984   63832 1207589  126d25 libc.so.12.179

That's AMD64 with Clang. Does the small difference really justify the
complexity?

Joerg