On 29 Nov 2013 14:11, "Lourival Vieira Neto" <lourival.neto%gmail.com@localhost> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Marc Balmer <marc%msys.ch@localhost> wrote:
> > Am 29.11.13 12:38, schrieb Lourival Vieira Neto:
> >>> It will be interesting to see by how much memory the addition of the
> >>> standard libraries will grow lua(4). lneto claims it does not grow at
> >>> all. If it should, we can still move the standard libraries to a kmod.
> >>
> >> I just double checked now (using nm to confirm). In fact, I was
> >> commenting the wrong portion of the Makefile to test. Sorry about that
> >> =(. Here is the result in amd64: 240K with stdlibs and auxlib, 166K
> >> with only auxlib and 154K solo. Anyway, I still think that is 86K is
> >> not that much to have things like {base, string, table}lib. However,
> >> though I think stdlibs could be in another kmod, I think that is not a
> >> good idea to have auxlib in another one. Lua auxlib is just an
> >> extension of the Lua C API and 12K is really a fair price to have a
> >> more complete Lua library in kernel, IMO.
> >
> > We could for now just go ahead, put auxlib and the stdlibs in lua(4) as
> > foreseen, and when the need arises, we can still factor out the stdlibs
> > to their own kmod.
>
> Agreed. Anyone opposes?
>
Sounds fine.