- Dillo-dev - lists.mailman3.com

Re: [Dillo-dev] dillo binary size

by Telent

> -rwxr-xr-x 1 raphi raphi 6358748 Mar 11 18:43 src/dillo Personally, my unstripped build is 5.5M; stripped, it's only 272K. -Sunny Raspet

March 11, 2003

Re: [Dillo-dev] nowrap and prefs.limit_text_width

by Sebastian Geerken

On Mon, Mar 10, Nicolas Kaiser wrote: > I'm having a little problem with sites that excessively make use of > "nowrap" tags, like <http://futurezone.orf.at> > > I toyed with limit_text_width (quote from dillorc: > > # Set this to YES, if you want to limit the word wrap width to the vieport > # width (may be useful for iPAQ) > limit_text_width=YES > > ), but I noticed that this option doesn't work as I would have expected, > because it doesn't force wrapping here (nowrap). "limit_text_width" is intended for table columns with explicitly or implicitly (e.g. by large banner images) set table widths. On futurezone, you have (IIRC; there was already some discussion exactly about this site) something like <td width=500 nowrap>, which is actually some kind of wrong HTML, since any correct interpretation would indeed not wrap the text (if I have understood it correct, strangely, most browsers *do* wrap the text). This is really a reason to send a mail to the webmaster. > Now I think in the context of this dillorc remark, it might be a good idea > to override 'nowrap' when limit_text_width is wanted. > > Am I cruelly breaking standards, or would that make sense? > Please have a look at the above site with limit_text_width=YES, and then > with the below patch. "nowrap" should be honored in any case (at least, it should not be turned off by *this* option), since it can be used for texts where wrapping makes the text unreadable. Sebastian

March 11, 2003

Re: [Dillo-dev] dillo binary size

by Simon Davis

Hi Melvin, I just checked the two binaries (0.7 and 0.7.2.1) and it seems that 0.7.2.1 is linking a few libraries in statically. It didn't occur to me to check ldd on both binaries. Thanks for the hint. SD --- Melvin Hadasht <melvin.hadasht(a)free.fr> wrote: > Hi Simon, > > on Tue, 11 Mar 2003 09:02:58 -0800 (PST) > Simon Davis <sd1324(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > After building dillo 0.7.1.2 and stripping the binary the file size is almost > > 1.6 megs. When I built 0.7 the final binary came out to be 289k. > > > > I built both using the uclibc library and gcc 3.2. > > > > Is there some special configuration option I need to add to make the binary > > smaller? > > > Maybe it was not dynamically linked? Try "ldd `which dillo`", it will show you > to which library it is dynamically linked. > > Cheers > > > -- > Melvin Hadasht > > _______________________________________________ > Dillo-dev mailing list > Dillo-dev(a)lists.auriga.wearlab.de > http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dillo-dev __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online http://webhosting.yahoo.com

March 11, 2003

Re: [Dillo-dev] dillo binary size

by Melvin Hadasht

Hi Simon, on Tue, 11 Mar 2003 09:02:58 -0800 (PST) Simon Davis <sd1324(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Hi, > > After building dillo 0.7.1.2 and stripping the binary the file size is almost > 1.6 megs. When I built 0.7 the final binary came out to be 289k. > > I built both using the uclibc library and gcc 3.2. > > Is there some special configuration option I need to add to make the binary > smaller? Maybe it was not dynamically linked? Try "ldd `which dillo`", it will show you to which library it is dynamically linked. Cheers -- Melvin Hadasht

March 11, 2003

Re: [Dillo-dev] dillo binary size

by Raphael Barabas

On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 09:02:58AM -0800, Simon Davis wrote: > After building dillo 0.7.1.2 and stripping the binary the file size > is almost 1.6 megs. When I built 0.7 the final binary came out to > be 289k. interesting. i never looked at the size of my binary before: -rwxr-xr-x 1 raphi raphi 6358748 Mar 11 18:43 src/dillo new record :) it still starts amazingly fast compared to any other browser. i compile dillo cvs on solaris8/sparc64 using gcc 3.2.2, gtk 1.2.10. raphi

March 11, 2003

Re: [Dillo-dev] dillo binary size

by John Bradford

> > I always use the gcc option -Os, which turns off all optimisations > > that increase code size... Don't know how much it will help, but > > there's no harm in trying ;) > > Just a nitpick, but that's not completely true. -Os will keep the > optimizations -O2 perform _but_ which do not increase the code > size too much. Furthermore, it adds some optimizations to > reduce code size. > > There have been reports of programs (or even the Linux kernel) > running faster with -Os then -O2 due to the small code size (which > can eventually fit inside the CPU cache). If you are really interested in this, have a look at this discussion: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=104457390406050&w=2 > But, yes, Simon could try to compile with -Os. Nonetheless, a 1.6 > MiB dillo binary (stripped) is very odd. (Heck, I've just tried > to compile with -O0 and I got a 329KiB binary). > > Maybe a GCC bug? Which version are you using? Maybe it was statically linked with something that is usually dynamically linked? John.

March 11, 2003

Re: [Dillo-dev] dillo binary size

by Livio Baldini Soares

Hi, TheStar writes: > On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 09:02:58 -0800 (PST) > Simon Davis <sd1324(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > After building dillo 0.7.1.2 and stripping the binary the file size is almost 1.6 megs. When I > > built 0.7 the final binary came out to be 289k. > > > > I built both using the uclibc library and gcc 3.2. > > > > Is there some special configuration option I need to add to make the binary smaller? Humm.. this is really bizarre! I have just tried gcc-2.95 and gcc 3.2.3 and both produce ~260k binaries with -Os and stripped. > I always use the gcc option -Os, which turns off all optimisations that increase code size... Don't know how much it will help, but there's no harm in trying ;) Just a nitpick, but that's not completely true. -Os will keep the optimizations -O2 perform _but_ which do not increase the code size too much. Furthermore, it adds some optimizations to reduce code size. There have been reports of programs (or even the Linux kernel) running faster with -Os then -O2 due to the small code size (which can eventually fit inside the CPU cache). But, yes, Simon could try to compile with -Os. Nonetheless, a 1.6 MiB dillo binary (stripped) is very odd. (Heck, I've just tried to compile with -O0 and I got a 329KiB binary). Maybe a GCC bug? Which version are you using? regards, -- Livio <livio(a)ime.usp.br>

March 11, 2003

Re: [Dillo-dev] dillo binary size

by TheStar

On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 09:02:58 -0800 (PST) Simon Davis <sd1324(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Hi, > > After building dillo 0.7.1.2 and stripping the binary the file size is almost 1.6 megs. When I > built 0.7 the final binary came out to be 289k. > > I built both using the uclibc library and gcc 3.2. > > Is there some special configuration option I need to add to make the binary smaller? I always use the gcc option -Os, which turns off all optimisations that increase code size... Don't know how much it will help, but there's no harm in trying ;) > > Thanks > > SD > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online > http://webhosting.yahoo.com > > _______________________________________________ > Dillo-dev mailing list > Dillo-dev(a)lists.auriga.wearlab.de > http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dillo-dev >

March 11, 2003

dillo binary size

by Simon Davis

Hi, After building dillo 0.7.1.2 and stripping the binary the file size is almost 1.6 megs. When I built 0.7 the final binary came out to be 289k. I built both using the uclibc library and gcc 3.2. Is there some special configuration option I need to add to make the binary smaller? Thanks SD __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online http://webhosting.yahoo.com

March 11, 2003

Re: [Dillo-dev] bm server a comedian ?

by slymer＠slymer.org

On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:03:39 -0400 (CLT) Jorge Arellano Cid <jcid(a)softhome.net> wrote: > Just get 0.7.1.2 and I'll pray it not to happen again! :-) Yep! Upgrading did the trick. Well I couldn't believe it either that bm serve was giving me the tongue in the cheek routine :} "Is it worth?" hahahaha -- Registered Linux user #298569 When you're down and out, lift up your voice and shout, "I'M DOWN AND OUT"!

March 11, 2003