Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 13 Dec 1997 22:39:17 +1100
From:      Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
To:        bde@zeta.org.au, mike@smith.net.au
Cc:        cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-usrbin@FreeBSD.ORG, msmith@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/minigzip - Imported sources
Message-ID:  <199712131139.WAA31850@godzilla.zeta.org.au>

next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> >  This framework builds the 'minigzip' sample program supplied with
>> >  libz.  It is a non-GPL-polluted minimal implementation of the 'gzip'
>> >  command, yielding a 12k executable (vs ~100k for gzip).
>> 
>> That's because it is linked shared.  When both are linked static under
>> 2.2.5, gzip is 88K (for the installed file size) and minigzip is 72K.
>> When both are linked shared, gzip is 52K and minigzip is 12K.  I
>> guess minigzip is only worth putting in crunched binaries if you've
>> already bloated them by using libz.
>
>Very good; give the man a bannana.   Gzip linked (shared) under 3.0 is 
>actually about 100k, as noted in the log message.

Wrong.  It is 52K when linked shared under both -current and 2.2 (I
actually tested under freefall's ancient version of 2.2, not under 2.2.5).

>Note also that if you are in a space-restricted environment but already 
>have libz present (think 'ppp router floppy') you win again.  I felt 
>the minor build/space bloat (a few tens of k and a few seconds) was a 
>reasonable tradeoff.  Saving 80+k on a potential install floppy isn't a 
>bad win either.

More like 20-K for the install floppy.  The necessary parts of the library
are mostly already present, so the savings are about the same as the
difference in the sizes in the shared case (40K).  Then compression
reduces the size by about a factor of 2.

Bruce



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199712131139.WAA31850>