Re: [boost] Size of shared libraries

From: Steve M. Robbins (steven.robbins_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-24 19:02:53

On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 05:03:17PM -0500, David Abrahams wrote:

> My questions are:
> 
> 1. Does anyone know of a "magic bullet" for decreasing the size of C++
> shared libs on Unix (and secondarily, with GCC on any platform)?

What flags are you compiling with?  All the compiles I do (using
"gcc-stlport.jam") end up with all optimization turned off, using the
-O0 flag.  Try again with -O2, perhaps.

On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 06:24:03PM -0500, David Abrahams wrote:
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rene Rivera" <grafik666_at_[hidden]>
> 
> > On 2002-02-24 at 05:03 PM, david.abrahams_at_[hidden] (David Abrahams) wrote:
> >
> > >2. It looks like Unix linkers generally admit "-s" as an option which
> > >indicates that symbols should be stripped from the result. Does it make
> > >sense to apply this whenever <optimization>space is specified?
> >
> > No, after all I might want to debug some optimization that is causing
> > problems. But it certainly does make sense to add the "-s" flag when
> > "<debug-symbols>off" is specified.
> 
> OK, makes sense. But if the compiler isn't generating any debug symbols in
> the first place, why does stripping the linked result make any difference?

You're sure that no debug symbols are being emitted?  All my builds
use the "-g" flag.

-- 
by Rocket to the Moon,
by Airplane to the Rocket,
by Taxi to the Airport,
by Frontdoor to the Taxi,
by throwing back the blanket and laying down the legs ...
- They Might Be Giants