xlib + xcms
Enrico Weigelt
weigelt at metux.de
Mon Mar 27 17:47:39 PST 2006
* Bill Crawford <billcrawford1970 at gmail.com> schrieb:
<snip>
> There's plenty of functions in [g]libc that I'll probably never call.
> Most libraries above the level of libc will have plenty of functions
> in that I never call. Should they all be removed?
There's a difference between unused code in some shared library and
linked functions that don't actually get called.
Why should the compiler generate an reference to some function
which is never used ?
<snip>
> It's entirely possible for applications to have had code dealing with
> Xcms that just never got called. Entirely possible.
hmm, okay, *possible* that there's unused code referencing xcms, but
how probable is that ?
does anyone have some binaries referencing xcms stuff ?
<snip>
> > Could anyone, who has access to a lot of older applications do
> > an nm over them to see whether anyone links in these functions ?
>
> And if they're statically linked? ;)
Then its irrelevant to us.
<snip>
> > Okay, we maybe have a little bit of code duplication with that,
>
> Doesn't this sorta invalidate the whole argument about slimming
> things down?
No. I'm thinking about optimized installations, not the source.
Code duplications in the source do not necessarily end up in
redundant binary code.
cu
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Enrico Weigelt == metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce:
http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce
Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions:
rsync://sources.metux.de/metux-patches
---------------------------------------------------------------------
More information about the xorg
mailing list