Re: setup w/char* eliminated is big

["Robert Collins" <robert dot collins at itdomain dot com dot au>]

Well, 11K (i.e. 2 seconds download at 56Kbit) is neither here nor there.
100K is more of an issue.

Anyway, Chris' response (AFAICT) implied that the size was not an issue,
but cross-compilability was.

Rob


===
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary R. Van Sickle" <g.r.vansickle@worldnet.att.net>
To: <cygwin-apps@sources.redhat.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 6:20 PM
Subject: RE: setup w/char* eliminated is big


> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cygwin-apps-owner@cygwin.com
> > [mailto:cygwin-apps-owner@cygwin.com]On Behalf Of Pavel Tsekov
> > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 10:05 AM
> >
> > Robert Collins wrote:
> >
> > > Ok,
> > >  finally got some breathing time.
> > >
> > > Setup with char * eliminated is ~350K. Ouch.
> > >
> > > This is why I've not committed my patch yet (I've been trying to
see
> > > *where* the extra 100K appeared from).
> >
> >
> > You have four 'inline' - I know they're small in size, but three of
them
> > are the most commonly used methods (the default and the copy
constructor
> > and also the 'operator ='). Remove the 'inline' modifier and see if
the
> > executable gets smaller.
> >
>
> Done and done:
>
> CVS + "For the curious" patch + Two subsequent patches from Michael
Chase ==
> 355840 bytes.
> Above with all inlines "un-inlined" == 344576 bytes.
>
> So a bit over 11KB saved.  In my judgement that's enough to warrant
removing the
> inlines; if string-handling speed is a significant factor for
setup.exe I'd say
> there's something wrong somewhere that no amount of inlines could
remedy.
>
> --
> Gary R. Van Sickle
> Brewer.  Patriot.
>
>