[PATCH] size reduction and clean up swaponoff.c

[Bernhard Fischer]

On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 06:50:03AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
>On Saturday 17 September 2005 05:19, Bernhard Fischer wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 12:50:49AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> >On Wednesday 14 September 2005 11:12 am, Rob Landley wrote:
>> >> On Monday 12 September 2005 21:26, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> >> > unrelated to this patch, and minor overall, but our swap utils
>> >> > different
>> >
>> >if they really care they could just pipe into /dev/null
>>
>> I put CURRENT_TTY and CONSOLE_DEV into their own obj files.
>
>Ouch.
>
>> Should we  put DEV_NULL also in it's obj file contained in libbb?
>
>/dev/null, /dev/tty, and /dev/console are all constant strings, right?  Living 
>at standard defined places?

yes.
>
>If you're saying we should have one instance of these strings to save space 
>and can't trust compilers to get this right, fine.  But that's a larger 
>problem, there's a a lot of strings like that.  Putting each one in its 

There are indeed more of these.

>own .o file is _not_ a good solution here.

hm, why not?
>
>We need to work out some kind of mechanism for this, but having an 
>individual .c file and individual .o file for each string is just...  Ick.

We do *not* have individual .c files for them. In another thread i
proposed to put them into messages.c but you objected ¹). I locally have
them now in libbb/static_strings.c but any suggestion for a more
appropriate name or place is welcome. It's really a minor detail, imho,
but i want to resolve it sooner rather than later.

¹) later in said thread, you admitted that you "tend to have a tropism for
_fewer_ files", but ok.