• danny (7/7) Jan 18 2005 I use dmc8.41 and wxwidgets 2.4.2.
• chris elliott (7/16) Jan 20 2005 You might like to see my table at
• danny (9/25) Jan 21 2005 Thanks a lot.
• Michael Hagley (5/12) May 06 2006 You can strip the executable of the symbol table and relocation bits by ...
• chris elliott (14/31) May 09 2006 you might like to look at
• Def (8/10) May 10 2006 This can not always be recommended, however, for production code (meanin...

"danny" <danny hftc.com.cn> writes:

I use dmc8.41 and wxwidgets 2.4.2.
I build the lib use \src\msw\makefile.sc.
then write a simple app just show a frame.
but the app size 1.2M, with -g the size grow up
to 1.7M.
but  with VC++6, only 500K, how to reduce the
applicatin's size?

chris elliott <biol75 york.ac.uk> writes:

You might like to see my table at 
http://biolpc22.york.ac.uk/wx/wxhatch/wxMSW_Compiler_choice.html

The main problems are in the linkers, I think

So you can make the program smaller by setting unused bits of the libary 
to 0 in setup.h

chris

danny wrote:
 I use dmc8.41 and wxwidgets 2.4.2.
 I build the lib use \src\msw\makefile.sc.
 then write a simple app just show a frame.
 but the app size 1.2M, with -g the size grow up
 to 1.7M.
 but  with VC++6, only 500K, how to reduce the
 applicatin's size?
 
 

"danny" <danny hftc.com.cn> writes:

Thanks a lot.
I have seen the table before. But I note you didn't mention the size under
release configuration with Digital Mars.
The makefile in the wxwidgets without a releaseconfiguration. I'm not
familiar with the bakefile, so I modify the  makesc.env , delete the
_D__WXDEBUG in the CFLAGS line. Make success, but the size of the lib only
shrink a little.
I don't know if this is a right way.
I'll try the setup.h later time.


 You might like to see my table at
 http://biolpc22.york.ac.uk/wx/wxhatch/wxMSW_Compiler_choice.html

 The main problems are in the linkers, I think

 So you can make the program smaller by setting unused bits of the libary
 to 0 in setup.h

 chris

 danny wrote:
 I use dmc8.41 and wxwidgets 2.4.2.
 I build the lib use \src\msw\makefile.sc.
 then write a simple app just show a frame.
 but the app size 1.2M, with -g the size grow up
 to 1.7M.
 but  with VC++6, only 500K, how to reduce the
 applicatin's size?

Michael Hagley <Michael_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <cskjgu$bl5$1 digitaldaemon.com>, danny says...
I use dmc8.41 and wxwidgets 2.4.2.
I build the lib use \src\msw\makefile.sc.
then write a simple app just show a frame.
but the app size 1.2M, with -g the size grow up
to 1.7M.
but  with VC++6, only 500K, how to reduce the
applicatin's size?

You can strip the executable of the symbol table and relocation bits by using
the "% cc -s yourapp.c" command. Once you've done that, it should be
significantly smaller. You could also try using an executable compressor like
UPX to make your executable even smaller.

chris elliott <biol75 york.ac.uk> writes:

you might like to look at
http://biolpc22.york.ac.uk/wx/wxhatch/wxMSW_Compiler242_choice.html

(see also 
http://biolpc22.york.ac.uk/wx/wxhatch/wxMSW_Compiler_choice.html where 
the bakefile build system was used)

My impression for 2.4 is that the differnces in size between linkers 
soon disappear when the size of your program starts to increase; with 
the minimal sample there is a ratio of 1:4 in sizes, but for my more 
complex test case (wxhatch) the ratio is much smaller

The usual answer to making the file smaller is to turn off the parts of 
the wxW library in setup.h (hint: remove all the setup.h files you can 
find, edit setup0.h, and recompile the library

chris

Michael Hagley wrote:
 In article <cskjgu$bl5$1 digitaldaemon.com>, danny says...
 I use dmc8.41 and wxwidgets 2.4.2.
 I build the lib use \src\msw\makefile.sc.
 then write a simple app just show a frame.
 but the app size 1.2M, with -g the size grow up
 to 1.7M.
 but  with VC++6, only 500K, how to reduce the
 applicatin's size?

 
 You can strip the executable of the symbol table and relocation bits by using
 the "% cc -s yourapp.c" command. Once you've done that, it should be
 significantly smaller. You could also try using an executable compressor like
 UPX to make your executable even smaller.
 
 

Def <Def_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <e3hrqf$2ao1$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Michael Hagley says...

 [...] You could also try using an executable compressor like
 UPX to make your executable even smaller.

This can not always be recommended, however, for production code (meaning
programs you want to sell). It's not the fault of UPX, but I remember there have
always been problems caused by buggy or too aggressive heuristics of anti-virus
software. Of course, you don't want your customers to get a virus warning from
your program (even if it's a false one).

All of the above is IMHO. ;-)
Def