Prev: Re[2]: making GDI objects thread-safe
Next: How to manage combo box drop-down size?
From: Lars Uffmann on 25 Jan 2008 09:20
Eric Jensen wrote:
> LU> Sooo - what's the minimum size of a standalone(*) wxwidgets executable?
> LU> 1MB? 5MB? 26MB???
> in a real-world example you will hardly get below 600k. With UPX
> compression you might reduce that to 300k, but that's it.

600k would be a dream come true atm :) Na - compression ain't something
I was trying to do. Application speed >> everything.

> If you're looking for really small executables (a few k), wx might not
> be the right choice for you.
Don't worry, I'm not that much of a minimalist :) I wanted fast tools
with a graphical UI - I don't mind a couple of MB, but I want it to be
comparable to the last time I created executable GUI applications, which
was '97 with Borland Delphi - which was a few 100k for a minor application.

I guess I'll find my way with wxWidgeths somehow...

Best Regards,

Lars
From: Lars Uffmann on 25 Jan 2008 09:22
Chris Elliott wrote:
>> Unless that really means I have to manually edit every single define
>> statement in the setup.h header file.
> That's the way, the linker is completely hopeless at removing code you
> don't use

I was hoping that maybe the other way round worked... That make would be
able to include only that code that I _do_ reference...

Is it possible that the problem lies in #include "wx/wx.h"? And that I
should include those libraries used manually?

Thanks & Best Regards,

Lars
From: Matthias Buelow on 25 Jan 2008 09:27
Lars Uffmann wrote:

> I don't mind a couple of MB, but I want it to be
> comparable to the last time I created executable GUI applications, which
> was '97 with Borland Delphi - which was a few 100k for a minor application.

Have you tried stripping the debug information from the binary? This is
usually the largest part of the executable file. It doesn't really
matter, though, since it won't get loaded into memory (unless you run it
inside a debugger) and users can provide you with meaningful stack
traces from core dumps (or similar facilities on Windows).
From: Julian Smart on 25 Jan 2008 10:11
Chris Elliott wrote:
>
> On 25 Jan 2008, at 13:16, Lars Uffmann wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Werner!
>>
>> Werner Smekal wrote:
>>> this is a common question and there is a wiki entry for that question:
>>> http://www.wxwidgets.org/wiki/index.php/Reducing_Executable_Size
>>
>> Sorry - tbh I didn't check for a wiki entry, but from what I can tell:
>>
>>> Maybe this is of any help for you.
>> No, it isn't helping :/
>>
>> Unless that really means I have to manually edit every single define
>> statement in the setup.h header file.
>
> That's the way, the linker is completely hopeless at removing code you
> don't use
VC++ (which you can get free) compiles much smaller executables. On Mac,
the problem of large GCC binary sizes is further compounded by having to
supply code for each architecture.

However, I feel that we can probably do something about GCC static
binary sizes by passing extra flags:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2003-08/msg00128.html

Has anyone tried it?

Regards,

Julian

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: wx-users-unsubscribe(a)lists.wxwidgets.org
For additional commands, e-mail: wx-users-help(a)lists.wxwidgets.org

From: Lars Uffmann on 25 Jan 2008 10:23
Matthias Buelow wrote:
> Have you tried stripping the debug information from the binary? This is
> usually the largest part of the executable file.

Ouch. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Sorry @ Werner & Guru,
strip --strip-all minimal.exe just reduced the size from 26.8MBytes to
2.7MBytes - I never expected the impact to be so huge, so I didn't even
bother to try this before finding "the other source for way too much
filesize".

Thanks a lot, I guess this solves the main problem I was having :)

Best Regards,

Lars
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Re[2]: making GDI objects thread-safe
Next: How to manage combo box drop-down size?