3 ms·

Hello world deps for C : linux-vdso.so.1 (0x00007fff25cb8000) libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x00007fe5f08d9000) /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x000

Hello world deps for C : linux-vdso.so.1 (0x00007fff25cb8000) libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x00007fe5f08d9000) /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00007fe5f0ae2000) And for Rust linux-vdso.so.1 (0x00007ffc109f9000) libgcc_s.so.1 => /lib64/libgcc_s.so.1 (0x00007f8eda404000) libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x00007f8eda222000) /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00007f8eda4a8000) Rather Rust has 1 more dynamically linked library than C.

fl0ki 3y ago
That might be true for Hello World, but libgcc_s is where a lot of builtins for C itself go, so you'll find it ends up linked into a lot of non-trivial C programs as well. See https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Libgcc.html https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Libgcc.html
Kamq 3y ago
You missed the word "statically" in the post you commented on. Dynamically linked libs rarely contribute heavily to binary bloat
- habibur 3y ago
  The benefit of statically linking becomes moot when it doesn't reduce the number of dynamically linked libraries. That's the point.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    That's not why rust statically links the runtime. The main benefit is that they don't have to try to design and maintain a stable ABI for it. Which is not moot. More generally, you statically link something to avoid distribution hassles of various kinds, not because you care about the specific number.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]