Today, I noticed that a completely clean build of wxRuby on my desktop machine is about 5.8 megs, but on my laptop is about 9.8 megs. Both computers are running Debian GNU/Linux, but my laptop is more of a mix of releases, whereas my desktop is almost entirely Sarge/Testing. Both are using gcc 3.3.3. In both cases, I did a full "get", and did a make from scratch. Any ideas about why the .so sizes would be so different? If you have built wxRuby under Linux, how large is your wxruby.so? Thanks, Kevin
Kevin Smith wrote:> > Today, I noticed that a completely clean build of wxRuby on my desktop > machine is about 5.8 megs, but on my laptop is about 9.8 megs. > > Both computers are running Debian GNU/Linux, but my laptop is more of a > mix of releases, whereas my desktop is almost entirely Sarge/Testing. > Both are using gcc 3.3.3. In both cases, I did a full "get", and did a > make from scratch. > > Any ideas about why the .so sizes would be so different? If you have > built wxRuby under Linux, how large is your wxruby.so?Under windows, the release wxRuby.so is 1.7 MB and the debug wxRuby.so is 2.4 MB. Curt
Curt Hibbs wrote:> Kevin Smith wrote: > >>Today, I noticed that a completely clean build of wxRuby on my desktop >>machine is about 5.8 megs, but on my laptop is about 9.8 megs.> Under windows, the release wxRuby.so is 1.7 MB and the debug wxRuby.so is > 2.4 MB.Ah. Thanks for the reality check. I thought I was already stripping all the symbols, but I wasn''t. YET AGAIN I was "helped" by the "feature" of gcc that it silently ignores any unrecognized command-line options. I forgot to tell it to pass the strip option along to the linker, so c++ ignored it, and the linker never saw it. *#*$&#$&&*&!!! Now my wxruby.so is about 1 MB, which makes much more sense. I did find another difference: I am still running wxWindows 2.4.1 on my desktop, but have 2.4.2 on my laptop. Compiling against 2.4.2 adds about 100k after both files are stripped. Side note: At Curt''s request, I have been experimenting with a Linux wxruby.so that statically links in wxWindows. It ends up about 6 MB, when I include wx and GTK, but leave out the X and C/C++ runtime libraries. The open question is: When we create a binary wxRuby gem, should the Linux version include GTK (adding 5 MB to the size), or assume you already have GTK 1.2 (which might be wrong 10%-50% of the time)? Kevin
Kevin Smith wrote:> > Side note: At Curt''s request, I have been experimenting with a Linux > wxruby.so that statically links in wxWindows. It ends up about 6 MB, > when I include wx and GTK, but leave out the X and C/C++ runtime > libraries. > > The open question is: When we create a binary wxRuby gem, should the > Linux version include GTK (adding 5 MB to the size), or assume you > already have GTK 1.2 (which might be wrong 10%-50% of the time)?I would say include it. I would like wxRuby binaries to "always" work. Techies who object to this would probably prefer to build from source anyway. Curt
Is there any way for the gems to have a "static" and "dynamic" version? That would be pretty nice, actually. H On Monday 19 April 2004 06:21, Curt Hibbs wrote:> Kevin Smith wrote: > > Side note: At Curt''s request, I have been experimenting with a Linux > > wxruby.so that statically links in wxWindows. It ends up about 6 MB, > > when I include wx and GTK, but leave out the X and C/C++ runtime > > libraries. > > > > The open question is: When we create a binary wxRuby gem, should the > > Linux version include GTK (adding 5 MB to the size), or assume you > > already have GTK 1.2 (which might be wrong 10%-50% of the time)? > > I would say include it. I would like wxRuby binaries to "always" work. > Techies who object to this would probably prefer to build from source > anyway. > > Curt > > _______________________________________________ > wxruby-users mailing list > wxruby-users@rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/wxruby-users
Hunter Kelly wrote:> > Is there any way for the gems to have a "static" and "dynamic" version? > That would be pretty nice, actually.No. But, we can (and will) create a source gem (in addition to the binary gems). Source gems can compile ruby C extensions that use the extconf.rb method. The only caveat would be that you would have to have previously installed and compiled wxWidgets. Curt