xlib + xcms

[Enrico Weigelt]

* 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------