Compiling with VS.NET 2005
Moderator: Moderators
Compiling with VS.NET 2005
I managed to compile latest CVS with VS.NET 2005 today and found the size of the Release exe to be somewhat big.
2003 = 1164 KB
2005 = 2256 KB
Not very optimized, at least not in size.
2003 = 1164 KB
2005 = 2256 KB
Not very optimized, at least not in size.
"Nothing really happens fast. Everything happens at such a rate that by the time it happens, it all seems normal."
-
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 587
- Joined: 2003-05-07 02:38
- Location: Sweden, Linkoping
No, compiled both myself from latest CVS code in 2003 (STLPort 4.6.2, wtl75_5160) and 2005 (STLPort 5.0 RC6, wtl75_5249)joakim_tosteberg wrote:You are comparing binarys you have compilied yourself and not against a DC++ release one which have been compressed with UPX?
I'm not sure what you mean by this...can you explain a bit more? (I haven't changed the default configuration of the project if that's what you mean)joakim_tosteberg wrote:You did not accidently compile with a static link to the runtime instead of a dynamic one?
"Nothing really happens fast. Everything happens at such a rate that by the time it happens, it all seems normal."
-
- DC++ Contributor
- Posts: 3212
- Joined: 2003-01-07 21:46
- Location: .pa.us
-
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 587
- Joined: 2003-05-07 02:38
- Location: Sweden, Linkoping
This changelog entry made me thought they where, but then I was wrong.GargoyleMT wrote:The official DC++ releases are not UPX compressed, so if it is, Guitarm did it himself.joakim_tosteberg wrote: a DC++ release one which have been compressed with UPX?
Code: Select all
* Added a switch to ease the life of the UPX compressor (exe compressors suck btw) (thanks garg)
-
- DC++ Contributor
- Posts: 3212
- Joined: 2003-01-07 21:46
- Location: .pa.us
Exe compressors do suck, which was why arne doesn't do it. However a number of DC++ derived clients do, and since it was just a command line switch for the linker, putting the patch in DC++ made a good deal of sense. (to me)joakim_tosteberg wrote:This changelog entry made me thought they where, but then I was wrong.
-
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 587
- Joined: 2003-05-07 02:38
- Location: Sweden, Linkoping
2,2 MB is about the size my release DCPlusPlus.exe has when compiled with vs 2005 aswell, as I currently not have vs 2003 installed I can't compare the sizes.
I'm currently enabling some size optimization parameters to see if that makes any difference in size.
But one thing that I can think of that could make the difference in size is that with the new STLPort at least I have to compile the STLPort library first and that the library then imported makes it bigget than if it as before just could include the files and compile everything without the need for an libray to import.
Edit: I was able to get it down to about 1400 KB by optimizing more for size than for speed.
I'm currently enabling some size optimization parameters to see if that makes any difference in size.
But one thing that I can think of that could make the difference in size is that with the new STLPort at least I have to compile the STLPort library first and that the library then imported makes it bigget than if it as before just could include the files and compile everything without the need for an libray to import.
Edit: I was able to get it down to about 1400 KB by optimizing more for size than for speed.
I didn't compile it. I just diffe'd the 4.6.2 config with the 5.0 config and made the latter the same as the former. Can you explain what you mean by compiling it?joakim_tosteberg wrote:But one thing that I can think of that could make the difference in size is that with the new STLPort at least I have to compile the STLPort library first and that the library then imported makes it bigget than if it as before just could include the files and compile everything without the need for an libray to import.
/Regards
"Nothing really happens fast. Everything happens at such a rate that by the time it happens, it all seems normal."
-
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 587
- Joined: 2003-05-07 02:38
- Location: Sweden, Linkoping
Hmm, I didn't get it to link correctly if I used the same configuration in the stlport config, but I did it manually so I might have missed something.Guitarm wrote:I didn't compile it. I just diffe'd the 4.6.2 config with the 5.0 config and made the latter the same as the former. Can you explain what you mean by compiling it?joakim_tosteberg wrote:But one thing that I can think of that could make the difference in size is that with the new STLPort at least I have to compile the STLPort library first and that the library then imported makes it bigget than if it as before just could include the files and compile everything without the need for an libray to import.
/Regards
You can compile STLPort to get STLPort library files by entering the build/lib subdirectory in STLPort and using microsoft's commandline compiler (or some other).
I see, yes, I did that too (nmake). But if you carefully fix the config file (there's some negation changes in there) and then remove references to MANIFEST (I actually renamed the whole .rc file). I had to make some (ugly) hacks to WTL aswell (Just commented out a ASSERT in atlapp.h (468)) for example.joakim_tosteberg wrote:You can compile STLPort to get STLPort library files by entering the build/lib subdirectory in STLPort and using microsoft's commandline compiler (or some other).
With this it (at least) compiled and I was able to start it.
"Nothing really happens fast. Everything happens at such a rate that by the time it happens, it all seems normal."
-
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 587
- Joined: 2003-05-07 02:38
- Location: Sweden, Linkoping
Okey, I think I'll stick to the way I have it, seems much less painful :PGuitarm wrote:I see, yes, I did that too (nmake). But if you carefully fix the config file (there's some negation changes in there) and then remove references to MANIFEST (I actually renamed the whole .rc file). I had to make some (ugly) hacks to WTL aswell (Just commented out a ASSERT in atlapp.h (468)) for example.joakim_tosteberg wrote:You can compile STLPort to get STLPort library files by entering the build/lib subdirectory in STLPort and using microsoft's commandline compiler (or some other).
With this it (at least) compiled and I was able to start it.