lua-users home
lua-l archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

OK, folks, thanks for all your help.

I know this is a n00b question, but here goes.  I know that is logical, but
I haven't done this yet.  If I run strip on the .a files before building the
executable, the executable size drops to 46K!  That seems more in line to
me.  Is that a valid process?  

BTW, I have moved numbers to long (I think), by putting the following in my
NUMBER= -DLUA_USER_H='"../etc/luser_number.h"' -DUSE_LONG


-----Original Message-----
[] On Behalf Of Joseph Stewart
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 9:40 AM
To: Lua list
Subject: Re: Compiling Lua for uClinux create larger file than expected

Don't forget that removing floating point can save lots of space (assuming
NIOS doesn't have a FPU).

BTW, the ".a" files are not needed for runtime!


On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 13:35:19 +0000, Bennett Todd <> wrote:
> 2004-10-20T02:09:31 Mike Crowe:
> > MCrowe@MCrowe lua $ l bin
> > total 395
> > -rw-rw-rw-    1 MCrowe   mkpasswd   403948 Oct 19 21:59 lua
> Bent Linux 1.1 has a statically linked lua 5.0.2 that's rather
> smaller:
> -rwxr-xr-x    1 root     root       145448 Oct 13 16:45 /usr/bin/lua
> uClibc rules:-).
> -Bennett

Person who say it cannot be done should not interrupt person doing it.
 -- Chinese Proverb