From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marius Vollmer To: guile-gtk@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: Towards guile-gtk 0.18 Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 05:14:00 -0000 Message-id: <87so2r97gz.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> References: <19991024202010.8425.qmail@nwcst287.netaddress.usa.net> <7eu2nfikc3.fsf@zesoi.fer.hr> <87iu3v49vx.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> X-SW-Source: 1999-q4/msg00035.html Jim Blandy writes: > > I'm a bit worried about the size of gtk-glue.c, too. > > Some historical perspective: people used to make fun of the Mach > microkernel because it wasn't very "micro" --- it was bigger than a > BSD kernel on the same machine. And it didn't even have filesystems, > networking stacks, and so on. [ Yeah, I know. I'm just about to assess how difficult it would be to port GNU Mach to Linux, that is, to use unmodified Linux code for the machine specific parts of Mach. I want to run the Hurd on my iMac. ] > It turns out that a full half of the executable was due to > automatically generated RPC stubs. Yes. I have done some minimal survey and it turnes out that a libguilegtk without any actual stubs in it has this size % size .libs/libguilegtk-1.3.so.0.0.0 text data bss dec hex filename 36719 1324 84 38127 94ef .libs/libguilegtk-1.3.so.0.0.0 while the regular one has % size /usr/local/lib/libguilegtk-1.3.so.0.0.0 text data bss dec hex filename 295734 36180 84 331998 510de libguilegtk-1.3.so.0.0.0 This might not be very relevant because a glue library is supposed to contain mostly glue, but it shows that reducing the glue portion of libguilegtk would have siginificant effects. - Marius