guest@geech.ai.mit.edu (Guest Account) (03/12/91)
While we're on the subject, I have GNU bash (the Bourne Again SHell) running on my PC7300. I like it a lot. It has the Bourne Shell syntax but it has a lot of other nice features including command and filename completion. It also has shell functions. On the down side, I compiled it with gcc (no shared libs) and it is >600K. Daniel Guilderson ryan@cs.umb.edu
john@chance.UUCP (John R. MacMillan) (03/15/91)
|On the down side, |I compiled it with gcc (no shared libs) and it is >600K. Yowza! That borders on obscene! I seem to remember emacs being smaller than that. Shared libraries will only save you 20k or so. Just for comparison: 1.14> size /bin/sh /bin/ksh /usr/local/bin/ksh rc /bin/sh: 36036 + 3372 + 3096 = 42504 /bin/ksh: 86376 + 2024 + 4564 = 92964 /usr/local/bin/ksh: 63812(.text) + 9464(.data) + 5996(.bss) + 0(.lib) = 79272 rc: 37892(.text) + 5452(.data) + 9132(.bss) + 0(.lib) = 52476 The local ksh is a relative of the PD ksh that was posted to alt.sources some time ago, and includes commandline editting, filename completion etc. Rc is the clone of the V10 and Plan 9 shell of the same name, and does not have fancy editting.
mike@thor.acc.stolaf.edu (Mike Haertel) (03/16/91)
In article <1991Mar14.230355.29442@chance.UUCP> john@chance.UUCP (John R. MacMillan) writes: >|On the down side, >|I compiled it with gcc (no shared libs) and it is >600K. > >Yowza! That borders on obscene! [...] I don't think bash is that big. I wonder if the person who posted the original article (whose name you omitted) had the presence of mind to strip it or use size(1) instead of 'ls -l'? Most GNU programs come with makefiles that specify -g by default... -- Mike Haertel <mike@stolaf.edu> "He's a tie with the ambition to become a full-blown suit." -- Jon Westbrock
guest@geech.ai.mit.edu (Guest Account) (03/16/91)
I checked it with size. It's about 245K. It is compiled with the -g option and it's not stripped. Good call. Daniel Guilderson ryan@cs.umb.edu