Slashdot Mirror
Smallest Possible ELF Executable?
taviso writes "I recently stumbled across this paper (google cache), where the author investigates the smallest possible ELF executable on linux, some interesting stuff, and well worth a read. The author concludes, 'every single byte in this executable file can be accounted for and justified. How many executables have you created lately that you can say that about?'
We really need more efficiant programming in OSes today. Look at the system requirements for OSes over the past few years. It's gone crazy. Check out the requirements for NT Workstation 4.0, Windows XP Pro and Windows 2000 Pro.
Doesn't something seem messed up? What have we really gained since 4.0 that causes 4x the memory, 3x the procecssor, and almost 15x the harddrive space? Is USB and Firewire support really that big? And have you ever tried to run XP on the min system? It doesn't work so well. I remember being able to tweak a system to run Windows 95 on a 386 with 5mb memory and a 45mb harddrive. It wasn't pretty but it could run. Today if you aren't going 1ghz+, then they want to leave you behind.
They are just using really fast hardware as an excuse for bloating the code.
Even Linux (redhat moreso) is guilty of this.
Remember when awesome games could fit on a handful of floppies? I think that could fly today if they tried. Look at the Demo scene. 64k can do alot of graphics. The most awesome games like Betrayal at Krondor were only a few floppies. Sure, if you have big hardware use it, but don't waste it. Programmers are just getting slack and including (literally) everything in the world, and not writing anything for themselves. They aren't looking to optimize stuff, just to kick it out and make money (obviously open source isn't guilty of the money or the fast kickout thing)...
Tibbon
tibbon.com
Looking through the comments here I see two main threads : (1) Squeezing out the last few overhead in a program leads to hard to understand / maintain program and thus is not worth the effort. (2) Whats the big deal anyway in this era of 100 GB disks and 2GHz processors?
While both these criticisms are valid, they miss the point. Firstly, it wasnt the objective of the author to squeeze the last few bytes out of that program to save resources. He was just putting his hard-earned knowledge to use. He was doing it because he could! This is the same motivation for people who climb mountains : because the mountain is there, and because they can climb it. Indeed, if the author were seriously looking into saving resources, he'd hardly be wasting his time on a trivial program, would he?
Secondly, one of the authors intentions was to demonstrate the limits to which austerity could be taken to. Certainly, this was a trivial program - but the same principles could be used to shrink larger non-trivial programs, and it those cases, the savings could possibly be larger. Of course, it those cases, the largest savings would come from a good optimizing compiler rather than crunching the headers together. More importantly, the author has exposed whole new ideas and lines of possibilities to programmers.
There is no such thing as luck. Luck is nothing but an absence of bad luck.
Beyond some point, the article is really just silliness, interesting or not. Below 512 bytes, your not going to save anything on any system. Ok, there are filesystems that compress things further for squeezing into flash memory and such, so maybe there are some marginally useful applications, but still the header overlapping is a bit much to be worth considering.
Maybe in theory. In practice, once your program gets too big to fit it all in your head at once, you're going to run out of the mental energy required to stay ahead of the C compiler (and remain bug-free).
If you've disassembled the output of a good optimizing compiler lately, you'd see that it usually produces pretty good code. Except for the inner loops of numerical algorithms, I doubt that anyone will consistently be able to produce code that is more than 25% faster than the C compiler.
The thing is, the compiler is able to spit out this code at thousands of lines per minute all day long. It doesn't get tired. The human programmer is going to get tired of the boredom, and will start creating higher level abstractions in assembly. He'll start using macros. He'll use a simplified parameter passing protocol so that he doesn't have to inline and hand-allocate the registers for every little subroutine call.
Before long, he's fallen behind, and the C code will run faster overall. And the C program will have taken less time to write, as well.
Just because a program or executable file is smaller, doesn't necessarily mean it's more efficient. For instance, some compiler optimizations actually produce larger executables. If you unroll a loop, it actually generates code for each iteration of the loop, but saves time because it's faster to keep going forward than to branch backwards to run through the code again.
Similarly, you can have inline functions that insert the inline function directly into the function calling it. Every function that calls an inline function would get a copy of it, which produces larger code, but saves a lot of time since it doesn't need to push the arguments on the stack, branch to the new function, and return with the value.
Finally, the biggest speed gains you can get are generally algorithmic in nature. You can do a bubble sort with just a few lines of code. It's a lot simpler code and smaller than the larger and more complicated quick sort or merge sort. I know which one I'd rather wait for with a million items to sort.
So remember, just because something is bigger, doesn't mean it's more bloated, and just because something is smaller doesn't mean it's faster or more efficient.
Looking for a computer support specialist for your small business? Check out