ftp.delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2002/02/16/07:49:18

Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID: <013801c1b6e8$6eb8d780$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
From: "Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To: "Gary R. Van Sickle" <g DOT r DOT vansickle AT worldnet DOT att DOT net>,
<cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
References: <NCBBIHCHBLCMLBLOBONKGEKFCKAA DOT g DOT r DOT vansickle AT worldnet DOT att DOT net>
Subject: Re: setup w/char* eliminated is big
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 23:49:52 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Feb 2002 12:49:09.0782 (UTC) FILETIME=[53CEE360:01C1B6E8]

Well, 11K (i.e. 2 seconds download at 56Kbit) is neither here nor there.
100K is more of an issue.

Anyway, Chris' response (AFAICT) implied that the size was not an issue,
but cross-compilability was.

Rob


===
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary R. Van Sickle" <g DOT r DOT vansickle AT worldnet DOT att DOT net>
To: <cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 6:20 PM
Subject: RE: setup w/char* eliminated is big


> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
> > [mailto:cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com]On Behalf Of Pavel Tsekov
> > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 10:05 AM
> >
> > Robert Collins wrote:
> >
> > > Ok,
> > >  finally got some breathing time.
> > >
> > > Setup with char * eliminated is ~350K. Ouch.
> > >
> > > This is why I've not committed my patch yet (I've been trying to
see
> > > *where* the extra 100K appeared from).
> >
> >
> > You have four 'inline' - I know they're small in size, but three of
them
> > are the most commonly used methods (the default and the copy
constructor
> > and also the 'operator ='). Remove the 'inline' modifier and see if
the
> > executable gets smaller.
> >
>
> Done and done:
>
> CVS + "For the curious" patch + Two subsequent patches from Michael
Chase ==
> 355840 bytes.
> Above with all inlines "un-inlined" == 344576 bytes.
>
> So a bit over 11KB saved.  In my judgement that's enough to warrant
removing the
> inlines; if string-handling speed is a significant factor for
setup.exe I'd say
> there's something wrong somewhere that no amount of inlines could
remedy.
>
> --
> Gary R. Van Sickle
> Brewer.  Patriot.
>
>

- Raw text -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019