Re: Bug#757941: static linking: alternatives for glibc?
On 07.10.2014 08:07, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Michael Tokarev wrote:
>> apps becomes huge in size
> I wonder if LTO would help with the size issues, theoretically all the
> code from the static glibc that isn't used by busybox-static would be
> stripped out of the resulting binaries.
this is already the case with regular static linking, you don't need LTO
to remove unused code, the compiler only uses those objects from that
archive that are required to resolve all symbols.