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
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 09:02:58 -0800 (PST) Simon Davis <sd1324@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@lists.auriga.wearlab.de http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dillo-dev
Hi, TheStar writes:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 09:02:58 -0800 (PST) Simon Davis <sd1324@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@ime.usp.br>
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.
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
Hi Simon, on Tue, 11 Mar 2003 09:02:58 -0800 (PST) Simon Davis <sd1324@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
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@free.fr> wrote:
Hi Simon,
on Tue, 11 Mar 2003 09:02:58 -0800 (PST) Simon Davis <sd1324@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@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
participants (7)
-
John Bradford -
Livio Baldini Soares -
Melvin Hadasht -
Raphael Barabas -
Simon Davis -
Telent -
TheStar