1. Re: .exe size (was Icons)
Derek Brown writes:
> make it where it only includes the built in routines you use
> in the program. For example, in the above case, it will leave
> out every routine but puts(). Is that possible? I'm working on a
> huge project, but I still only use about 40-60% of the routines...
> maybe this could make executables a little smaller.
The proposed new binder is expected to eliminate unused
Euphoria routines, constants and variables. This will reduce the
size of your .exe somewhat. It's not possible to dynamically
exclude portions of the interpreter executable.
The new Linux interpreter, exu, is only 83K.
Lionel Wong writes:
> How about having the bound program binded only to the
> *core interpreter* without the trace and profile modules and
> other built-in debugging tools. That might increase speed
> and reduce file size.
I seriously considered that at one point, then I found that
I would only be saving about 20K on ex.exe. There would
be no gain in speed from doing this. The worst part is that I
would have to build and test 3 versions of the
interpreter for each platform. That would make 9 different
interpreters to build:
(Complete, PD, NO-DEBUG) x (DOS32, WIN32, Linux).
Also, the additional #ifdef statements sprinkled through the
C code (to eliminate debug/profile code)
would make maintenance harder. There are already a lot
of #ifdef's for the 3 platforms, PD vs Complete,
debugging builds etc.
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://members.aol.com/FilesEu/
