OpenEuphoria

2. Re: How to produce one ".exe" lower ?

• Posted by BRyan Oct 06, 2011
• 1370 views

system(getenv("EUDIR")&"\\bin\\eubind.exe myProg.exw",1) 

Binding creates a file that is size of euiw.exe interpreter + your program file.

You can try translating your program instead of binding.

4. Re: How to produce one ".exe" lower ?

• Posted by BRyan Oct 06, 2011
• 1364 views

The 3.11 interpreter size is 329 KB (337,408 bytes)

The 4.xx interpreter size is 1.88 MB (1,972,280 bytes)

6. Re: How to produce one ".exe" lower ?

• Posted by jeremy (admin) Oct 06, 2011
• 1290 views

euc -con myProg.exw 

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

8. Re: How to produce one ".exe" lower ?

• Posted by sergelli Oct 07, 2011
• 1223 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

10. Re: How to produce one ".exe" lower ?

• Posted by sergelli Oct 07, 2011
• 1182 views

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

12. Re: How to produce one ".exe" lower ?

• Posted by sergelli Oct 07, 2011
• 1113 views

Please explain more, the Google translator did not understand

14. Re: How to produce one ".exe" lower ?

• Posted by jeremy (admin) Oct 07, 2011
• 1405 views

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

16. Re: How to produce one ".exe" lower ?

• Posted by mattlewis (admin) Oct 07, 2011
• 1118 views

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

18. Re: How to produce one ".exe" lower ?

• Posted by mattlewis (admin) Oct 07, 2011
• 1094 views

Well, there are still practical limitations, but in general I agree, so long as it doesn't get too ridiculous.

Matt