Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 10:40:24 -0500 (CDT) From: FreeBSD Fanatic <freebsd@KIWI-Computer.com> To: current@Freebsd.org Cc: Bakul@KIWI-Computer.com, Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com> Subject: Re: HEADS UP: ACPI CHANGES AFFECTING MOST -CURRENT USERS Message-ID: <200109071540.f87FeO077964@KIWI-Computer.com> In-Reply-To: <200109061645.MAA22586@marlborough.cnchost.com> "from Bakul Shah at Sep 6, 2001 09:45:26 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > 61342 4476 3480 69298 10eb2 scheme > > > > Is that statically-linked? I'm curious to know the size of the bootloader > > forth footprint. The loader is about 150k, so I'm sure you could probably > > fit a nice Scheme interpreter in under that size... ?? > > Dynamically linked. Here is the statically linked size: > > $ size scheme > text data bss dec hex filename > 127659 11092 9236 147987 24213 scheme Hmm, if it's stripped down a bit, it might fit nicely in the loader, replacing that 40k libficl mess.. ;) > Here is the /boot/loader size for comparison sake: > > text data bss dec hex > 4096 147456 0 151552 25000 <snip> > But ultimately someone has to do the actual work for this to > go beyond mere wishful thinking. I'd be happy to help out > (but not take on the whole task) if anyone braves the > naysayers :-) I suppose I could volunteer for this. I've been dissecting the loader for months now and hitting the 4th "fence" has been bothersome.. As far as braving those pesky naysayers, I thought about doing it on my own anyway so if no one wants the change, I'll just keep it for my own systems. =) If nothing else, I'm very curious to see how small I can get a Scheme implementation.. --Rick C. Petty, aka Snoopy rick@kiwi-computer.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200109071540.f87FeO077964>