From 956cbe7f6c2c7936fe2efe5e1e6c4ba25d5bf928 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Paul Duncan Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2021 15:47:07 -0500 Subject: fix tiny-binaries typos --- content/posts/2021-12-31-tiny-binaries.md | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/content/posts/2021-12-31-tiny-binaries.md b/content/posts/2021-12-31-tiny-binaries.md index 415a2c1..dee0d5a 100644 --- a/content/posts/2021-12-31-tiny-binaries.md +++ b/content/posts/2021-12-31-tiny-binaries.md @@ -3,16 +3,16 @@ slug: tiny-binaries title: "Tiny Binaries" date: "2021-12-31T09:28:32-04:00" --- -Recently I experimented with building the smallest possible static -[x86-64][] [Linux][] binaries in a variety of programming languages. +Out of curiousity I experimented with building the smallest possible +static [x86-64][] [Linux][] binaries in several programming languages. Each binary does the following: 1. Print `hi!` and a newline to [standard output][stdout]. 2. Return an exit code of `0`. -I tested [Assembly][], [C][], [Go][], and [Rust][] with a variety of -optimizations and build options. +I tested [Assembly][], [C][], [Go][], and [Rust][] with various +combinations of optimizations and build options. Here's a plot of the results (**note:** [log scale][] X axis): -- cgit v1.2.3