1. How to produce one ".exe" lower ?
- Posted by sergelli Oct 06, 2011
- 1387 views
Hello
I am using the Eu403 + Win32Lib + Windows and the line below to make the "myProg.exe"
system(getenv("EUDIR")&"\\bin\\eubind.exe myProg.exw",1)
It's working, but the file "myprog.exe" is very large, 3,095 Kb.
The size is only 417 Kb, while "myprog.exe" is produced with the "eu311"
How can I reduce this 3,095 Kb size?
What should I do for this?
Thanks
2. Re: How to produce one ".exe" lower ?
- Posted by BRyan Oct 06, 2011
- 1368 views
Hello
I am using the Eu403 + Win32Lib + Windows and the line below to make the "myProg.exe"
system(getenv("EUDIR")&"\\bin\\eubind.exe myProg.exw",1)
It's working, but the file "myprog.exe" is very large, 3,095 Kb.
The size is only 417 Kb, while "myprog.exe" is produced with the "eu311"
How can I reduce this 3,095 Kb size?
What should I do for this?
Thanks
Binding creates a file that is size of euiw.exe interpreter + your program file.
You can try translating your program instead of binding.
3. Re: How to produce one ".exe" lower ?
- Posted by sergelli Oct 06, 2011
- 1330 views
Binding creates a file that is size of euiw.exe interpreter + your program file. You can try translating your program instead of binding.
O. K. I'll try using the translator.
But, the way I'm calling the euiw.exe, causes a larger size?
Why using bind whit Eu311, the size is much smaller?
4. Re: How to produce one ".exe" lower ?
- Posted by BRyan Oct 06, 2011
- 1363 views
O. K. I'll try using the translator.
But, the way I'm calling the euiw.exe, causes a larger size?
Why using bind whit Eu311, the size is much smaller?
The 3.11 interpreter size is 329 KB (337,408 bytes)
The 4.xx interpreter size is 1.88 MB (1,972,280 bytes)
5. Re: How to produce one ".exe" lower ?
- Posted by sergelli Oct 06, 2011
- 1267 views
Now, I used Watcom + EU4 + win32Lib to produce "myProg.exe", now the size was 2,300 Kb
euc -con myProg.exw
So, the result is too large file, if compared with the results obtained with Eu311 (417 Kb).
That does not seem a step backwards?
6. Re: How to produce one ".exe" lower ?
- Posted by jeremy (admin) Oct 06, 2011
- 1288 views
Now, I used Watcom + EU4 + win32Lib to produce "myProg.exe", now the size was 2,300 Kb
euc -con myProg.exw
So, the result is too large file, if compared with the results obtained with Eu311 (417 Kb).
That does not seem a step backwards?
What is it translated with 3.1.1?
As for 2,300kb, that wouldn't concern me at all with todays computers. However, I wonder if some things are not being stripped properly from the executable. Something else you may wish to do is use upx if you are concerned about file size.
Is 2,300kb a problem for you? If so, why?
Jeremy
7. Re: How to produce one ".exe" lower ?
- Posted by Insolor Oct 07, 2011
- 1269 views
Eu 3.1.1 backend (IL interpreter) is compressed with the UPX therefore the result of the BIND command is much smaller. You can use UPX over your translated program as well.
8. Re: How to produce one ".exe" lower ?
- Posted by sergelli Oct 07, 2011
- 1221 views
What is it translated with 3.1.1?
As for 2,300kb, that wouldn't concern me at all with todays computers. However, I wonder if some things are not being stripped properly from the executable. Something else you may wish to do is use upx if you are concerned about file size.
Is 2,300kb a problem for you? If so, why?
Jeremy
Translate with 3.1.1 ?
The size is 1.448 Kb
Problem for me ?
First, I get the feeling that something is wrong.
Then why would you choose the greatest, if the less does the same thing?
For my case, the large size cause slowness in FTP
and 417 Kb to nearly 2 Mg is a big diference. Also, do you do not think so?
In short, I want to know if I'm doing something wrong
9. Re: How to produce one ".exe" lower ?
- Posted by jeremy (admin) Oct 07, 2011
- 1200 views
Translate with 3.1.1 ?
The size is 1.448 Kb
Problem for me ?
First, I get the feeling that something is wrong.
Then why would you choose the greatest, if the less does the same thing?
For my case, the large size cause slowness in FTP
and 417 Kb to nearly 2 Mg is a big diference. Also, do you do not think so?
In short, I want to know if I'm doing something wrong
I don't think you are doing anything wrong. You can use upx as Insolor has suggested. Also, size (to me) isn't a big factor in deciding if something is better. Today's computers (and networks) should have no problem with a file of this size. What I consider a big factor in deciding if something is better is how long did it take me to make the program and how does that program perform? 4.x is faster than 3.x in many areas and is easier to program in. The size is a bit larger but the other benefits are worth it.
I did a test of translating a simple program:
? 1
| 3.1 | 4.0.3 | 3.1 upx | 4.0.3 upx |
|---|---|---|---|
| 107,008 | 207,360 | 90,112 | 50,712 |
I do not use Win32Lib and do not even have it installed. A similar table would be interesting with the Win32 lib compiled in.
Jeremy
10. Re: How to produce one ".exe" lower ?
- Posted by sergelli Oct 07, 2011
- 1180 views
Also, size (to me) isn't a big factor in deciding if something is better.
What I consider a big factor in deciding if something is better is how long did it take me to make the program and how does that program perform?
The size is a bit larger but the other benefits are worth it. Jeremy
Really, using the "Eu403," many problems that existed with the "Eu311" no longer exist.
I used "UPX" and the size has dropped from more than 3 Mg to 1.8 Mg
So I'll follow, using the "Eu403"
Thanks Jeremy
Sergio
11. Re: How to produce one ".exe" lower ?
- Posted by jeremy (admin) Oct 07, 2011
- 1156 views
I wonder if we can use more agressive flags for stripping binaries during compilation? Would that help on size any?
Jeremy
12. Re: How to produce one ".exe" lower ?
- Posted by sergelli Oct 07, 2011
- 1112 views
I wonder if we can use more agressive flags for stripping binaries during compilation? Would that help on size any?
Jeremy
Please explain more, the Google translator did not understand 
13. Re: How to produce one ".exe" lower ?
- Posted by BRyan Oct 07, 2011
- 1173 views
I wonder if we can use more agressive flags for stripping binaries during compilation? Would that help on size any?
Jeremy
Please explain more, the Google translator did not understand
I wonder if we can use more conditional indicators for removing code that is not needed during compilation to make smaller files?
14. Re: How to produce one ".exe" lower ?
- Posted by jeremy (admin) Oct 07, 2011
- 1403 views
I wonder if we can use more conditional indicators for removing code that is not needed during compilation to make smaller files?
Matt can correct me if I am wrong but methods not used are not translated to the C files. So it's not a matter of not including Euphoria code, it has to do with the C library that we are linking to. Thus the C compiler would have to do a better job of stripping unused items.
Jeremy
15. Re: How to produce one ".exe" lower ?
- Posted by sergelli Oct 07, 2011
- 1161 views
Removal of code that is not required at compile time, to make files smaller will always be a good thing.
Sergio
16. Re: How to produce one ".exe" lower ?
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Oct 07, 2011
- 1115 views
I wonder if we can use more conditional indicators for removing code that is not needed during compilation to make smaller files?
Matt can correct me if I am wrong but methods not used are not translated to the C files. So it's not a matter of not including Euphoria code, it has to do with the C library that we are linking to. Thus the C compiler would have to do a better job of stripping unused items.
After code is parsed, the translator makes several passes over the resulting code. If you've ever translated, you'll have noticed that the translator prints out numbers. These numbers represent the number of passes made through the code.
Each time through, the translator tracks the values of variables as best it can, and notices which routines are called and which variables are used. When it can definitely say that a routine or variable is never used, that routine or variable is ignored from there after.
Also, if it can prove that a particular variable only ever takes certain values, it tries to use that knowledge to eliminate code branches. So if a variable is always greater than zero, and you had something like the following:
if foo then -- code else -- code end if
The translator will not even bother emitting the else block. No doubt, the C compiler does even more. And I'm sure there are more opportunities to improve the translator optimizations. The difficulty is in finding them. Also, there is a trade off between the optimizations and the time and memory used by the translator itself.
You could additionally strip the resulting binaries of any symbols that are kept after linking. I'm not sure if this is possible with Watcom. I generally wouldn't bother with this sort of thing.
The euphoria code itself has grown a bit (not huge amounts). We now have more functionality, including PCRE. I don't think this difference is very large, though. Certainly not as big as the difference made by compressing with UPX.
Matt
17. Re: How to produce one ".exe" lower ?
- Posted by jeremy (admin) Oct 07, 2011
- 1083 views
there is a trade off between the optimizations and the time and memory used by the translator itself.
I don't think we should care too much in the translator. Interpreter for sure. Maybe in a future version we can have an optimize flag that controls how many loops it'll take looking for optimizations, just like gcc. -O1, -O2, ...
Jeremy
18. Re: How to produce one ".exe" lower ?
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Oct 07, 2011
- 1092 views
there is a trade off between the optimizations and the time and memory used by the translator itself.
I don't think we should care too much in the translator. Interpreter for sure. Maybe in a future version we can have an optimize flag that controls how many loops it'll take looking for optimizations, just like gcc. -O1, -O2, ...
Well, there are still practical limitations, but in general I agree, so long as it doesn't get too ridiculous.
Matt
