On Tue, 09 Feb 1999 19:13:03 +0100 
 Guenther Grau <Guenther.Grau@bk.bosch.de> wrote:

 > Hmm, I thought we had a discussion on this before :-)
 > Just to make it clear from the start, we are talking about 
 > 
 > libcc1 NOT libc

Yes, I know libcc1 NOT libc.

 > How much disk space are you going to save? I think you'll only save the
 > diskspace for each language you have a compiler for, right?

Right, and by default, we install 4:

	C
	C++
	Objective C
	Fortran 77

Here's my m68k compiler backend.  Note the statically-linked cc1.bak:

-r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  1105920 May  4  1997 cc1.bak*

-r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel   212992 Feb  3 11:33 cc1*
-r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel   286720 Feb  3 12:20 cc1obj*
-r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel   688128 Feb  3 12:07 cc1plus*
-r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel   630784 Feb  3 12:56 f771*

-r--r--r--  1 root  wheel  1453568 Feb  3 11:23 libcc1.so.1.1

 > > In fact, the disk space savings of shared libcc1 is downright critical
 > > to get the compiler to fit on some of our platforms!
 > 
 > Huh, which platforms are these?

Consider VAX users who can only put e.g. RD54s on their systems.  Shared
libraries was a BIG DEAL for the VAX port for very pragmatic reasons.

 > > If _you_ want to eliminate the run-time startup cost of shared libraries,
 > > _you_ can build your system with LDSTATIC=-static.
 > 
 > I think, this was just a misunderstanding.

No.  Todd watned to eliminate the run-time cost of shared libraries, instead
trading space.  He, and any other NetBSD user, have that option by building
their systems statically.

        -- Jason R. Thorpe <thorpej@nas.nasa.gov>