setup w/char* eliminated is big

setup w/char* eliminated is big

[Robert Collins]

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).

Chris - is this a problem? IMO it's still a tiny fraction of the total
distribution size, and we're reducing the number of reasons a setup
update is *required* as we make /etc/profile and so on into packages.

If this is not a problem, I expect we can release a new setup after the
weekend (or even at the beginning - whatever makes more sense).

Rob

Re: setup w/char* eliminated is big

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 08:35:57PM +1100, 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).
>
>Chris - is this a problem? IMO it's still a tiny fraction of the total
>distribution size, and we're reducing the number of reasons a setup
>update is *required* as we make /etc/profile and so on into packages.

I dunno.  I think it probably is a problem.  I assume that you're using
more of libstdc++.a which will be a problem for cross compiles.

cgf

Re: setup w/char* eliminated is big

[Charles Wilson]

*please* make sure that the '-' vs. '_' fix is in before releasing the 
new setup.  I've been sitting on the bzip2 update waiting on this...

(Also, the localdir-is-on-remote-share fix would be nice, but it isn't 
as urgent as the '_' thing.)

--Chuck


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).
> 
> Chris - is this a problem? IMO it's still a tiny fraction of the total
> distribution size, and we're reducing the number of reasons a setup
> update is *required* as we make /etc/profile and so on into packages.
> 
> If this is not a problem, I expect we can release a new setup after the
> weekend (or even at the beginning - whatever makes more sense).
> 
> Rob
> 
> 

Re: setup w/char* eliminated is big

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 12:42:28PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
>*please* make sure that the '-' vs. '_' fix is in before releasing the 
>new setup.  I've been sitting on the bzip2 update waiting on this...
>
>(Also, the localdir-is-on-remote-share fix would be nice, but it isn't 
>as urgent as the '_' thing.)

I just removed the special case for '_' in parse_filename.

cgf

Re: setup w/char* eliminated is big

[Charles Wilson]

Christopher Faylor wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 12:42:28PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
> 
>>*please* make sure that the '-' vs. '_' fix is in before releasing the 
>>new setup.  I've been sitting on the bzip2 update waiting on this...
>>
>>(Also, the localdir-is-on-remote-share fix would be nice, but it isn't 
>>as urgent as the '_' thing.)
>>
> 
> I just removed the special case for '_' in parse_filename.


Oh -- well, I guess I coulda done that too, but I don't like 
unilaterally messing with code in someone else's kingdom (but since 
you're the Grand High Emperor Moppet, it's okay for YOU).  I know that 
Robert has had the fix in his local sandbox for two weeks.  I was just 
leaving it up to him to commit that fix -- and reminding him to do so 
before unleashing the new setup.exe upon the world.

Thanks.

--Chuck

Re: setup w/char* eliminated is big

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 01:02:54PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
>Oh -- well, I guess I coulda done that too, but I don't like 
>unilaterally messing with code in someone else's kingdom (but since 
>you're the Grand High Emperor Moppet, it's okay for YOU).  I know that 
>Robert has had the fix in his local sandbox for two weeks.  I was just 
>leaving it up to him to commit that fix -- and reminding him to do so 
>before unleashing the new setup.exe upon the world.

I don't feel too bad messing with this particular code since it's mine,
I know that I just arbitrarily added a '_' here, and Robert already
indicated that he'd revert it.

cgf

Re: setup w/char* eliminated is big

[Robert Collins]

===
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf@redhat.com>
To: <cygwin-apps@cygwin.com>
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 2:19 AM
Subject: Re: setup w/char* eliminated is big


> On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 08:35:57PM +1100, 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).
> >
> >Chris - is this a problem? IMO it's still a tiny fraction of the
total
> >distribution size, and we're reducing the number of reasons a setup
> >update is *required* as we make /etc/profile and so on into packages.
>
> I dunno.  I think it probably is a problem.  I assume that you're
using
> more of libstdc++.a which will be a problem for cross compiles.

No, we're not using more of libstdc++.a. It's purely a size issue
AFAICT.

I'll do a test cross compile this evening.

Rob

Re: setup w/char* eliminated is big

[Robert Collins]

===
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Wilson" <cwilson@ece.gatech.edu>
To: "Robert Collins" <robert.collins@itdomain.com.au>
Cc: <cygwin-apps@sources.redhat.com>
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 4:42 AM
Subject: Re: setup w/char* eliminated is big


> *please* make sure that the '-' vs. '_' fix is in before releasing the
> new setup.  I've been sitting on the bzip2 update waiting on this...
>
> (Also, the localdir-is-on-remote-share fix would be nice, but it isn't
> as urgent as the '_' thing.)

They both are.

Rob

Re: setup w/char* eliminated is big

[Robert Collins]

Please, no checkins to cinstall until this is sorted....

I have a bucketload in my sandbox - including that one! - and I don't
want to face merge issues - which your commit is causing.

So can you please back that commit out.

Rob
===
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf@redhat.com>
To: <cygwin-apps@cygwin.com>
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 4:50 AM
Subject: Re: setup w/char* eliminated is big


> On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 12:42:28PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
> >*please* make sure that the '-' vs. '_' fix is in before releasing
the
> >new setup.  I've been sitting on the bzip2 update waiting on this...
> >
> >(Also, the localdir-is-on-remote-share fix would be nice, but it
isn't
> >as urgent as the '_' thing.)
>
> I just removed the special case for '_' in parse_filename.
>
> cgf
>

Re: setup w/char* eliminated is big

[Robert Collins]

===
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf@redhat.com>
To: <cygwin-apps@cygwin.com>
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 5:06 AM
Subject: Re: setup w/char* eliminated is big


> On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 01:02:54PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
> >Oh -- well, I guess I coulda done that too, but I don't like
> >unilaterally messing with code in someone else's kingdom (but since
> >you're the Grand High Emperor Moppet, it's okay for YOU).  I know
that
> >Robert has had the fix in his local sandbox for two weeks.  I was
just
> >leaving it up to him to commit that fix -- and reminding him to do so
> >before unleashing the new setup.exe upon the world.
>
> I don't feel too bad messing with this particular code since it's
mine,
> I know that I just arbitrarily added a '_' here, and Robert already
> indicated that he'd revert it.

Exactly. Normally I'd have no issue with this. It's just the size of the
patch I'm trying to apply that has prompted meto ask you to revert your
commit.

Rob

Re: setup w/char* eliminated is big

[Christopher Faylor]

On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 08:27:37AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>Please, no checkins to cinstall until this is sorted....
>
>I have a bucketload in my sandbox - including that one! - and I don't
>want to face merge issues - which your commit is causing.
>
>So can you please back that commit out.

Huh?  It's one line.  The conflict can't be that unreasonable to work
out.  Just delete the part that I added.

cgf

RE: setup w/char* eliminated is big

[Gary R. Van Sickle]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cygwin-apps-owner@cygwin.com
> [mailto:cygwin-apps-owner@cygwin.com]On Behalf Of Robert Collins
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 3:36 AM
> To: cygwin-apps@sources.redhat.com
> Subject: setup w/char* eliminated is big
>
>
> 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).
>

Yowzers.  I currently show ~285K pre-char*-elimination, making it more like 65K,
but that still sounds like way too much of an increase.  Can you check it into
HEAD maybe and let a few more eyes look at it?

--
Gary R. Van Sickle
Brewer.  Patriot.

Re: setup w/char* eliminated is big

[Robert Collins]

===
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary R. Van Sickle" <g.r.vansickle@worldnet.att.net>

> > 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).
> >
>
> Yowzers.  I currently show ~285K pre-char*-elimination, making it more
like 65K,
> but that still sounds like way too much of an increase.  Can you check
it into
> HEAD maybe and let a few more eyes look at it?

Thats why I posted the patch to cygwin-patchs. I hadn't realised the
impact at that point.

Rob

Re: setup w/char* eliminated is big

[Pavel Tsekov]

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.

RE: setup w/char* eliminated is big

[Gary R. Van Sickle]

> -----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.

Re: setup w/char* eliminated is big

[Robert Collins]

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.
>
>

Re: setup w/char* eliminated is big

[ptsekov]

Well, after looking at the code for some time and playing with it i finally 
discovered that the purpose for the 100kb increment is not the String class but 
this:

This is taken from the Changelog for v.2.47 of the Makefile.in

Backout -fno-exceptions option.

This explains it all! No need to worry ;)) Bad thing is I havent looked at the 
Makefile.in first,
but spent time looking at assembly shite ;)))

Quoting Robert Collins <robert.collins@itdomain.com.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.
> >
> >
> 
> 

Re: setup w/char* eliminated is big

[Robert Collins]

===
----- Original Message -----
From: <ptsekov@syntrex.com>

> This explains it all! No need to worry ;)) Bad thing is I havent
looked at the
> Makefile.in first,
> but spent time looking at assembly shite ;)))

Thank you very much for this Pavel.

Rob