[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Bug-gnubg] Did I just mess up?

From: Holger
Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] Did I just mess up?
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 14:05:33 +0200

At 09:49 29.07.2003 +0200, Øystein O Johansen wrote:

> But on the other hand: in <glib/gutils.h> both
> g_path_get_dirname/g_path_get_basename are defined. Why not use these? Or
> are there really systems left without glib?

I really didn't think about these functions for the GTK+ builds.
For the none gui builds, I like to keep the executable small and
independent of many dlls. I therefore exclude unnecesarry features
(unnecesarry in my opinion that is) from the no gui build. I
exclude png+freetype+libart+zlib, i18n, gdbm and sound. The only

I think Joern told me once that the nogui version is also capable of generating png and html reports (and the pictures therefore). With this freetype, libart and zlib are also needed. I think it even plays sounds and the player record features are also usable without gtk+. If you want to get rid of those libraries you'll have to cripple gnubg quite a bit. Sure, the main functionality remains, but it's not only a nogui version then, but even less.

non-standard dlls gnubg-no-gui is depending on is libxml.dll and
now python22.dll. readline support is linked statically.

When I choose to make simplelibgen files it just to keep the
dependencies to a minimum. And the object file of simplelibgen is
332 bytes at my compile but the glib.dll is 613 kb in addition to
the other dependencies iconv.dll and libintl.dll

You write above that you only link readline statically (btw, why is this better?). The symbol tables shouldn't really make a difference.

So, for the no-gui build:
I can use glib functions, for a executable of ~800 kb it will suddenly
depend on 3 non-standard windows dlls which is:
613kb (glib) + 872kb (iconv) + 46kb (intl) = 1.53 MB
So I'm adding 1.53 MB of dependencies to a executable of half the size
of the additional dependencies, for only two fucking functions, dirname
and basename, which may take only 332 bytes!!

Imho, this would only make sense for limited systems, such as PDAs, where the gui version is not present. Then you could spare maybe more than 1 MB. But if the libraries already sit on the system because of the gui version or any other programme there's no drawback nor space penalty. The libraries should then better be copied to %windir%\system, though.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]