From: Kevin Wheatley (hxpro_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-04-06 12:47:42
Pavol Droba wrote:
> resulting binary have 200Kb)
> I would strongly prefer simplier usage of the library to an overhead of 152kBs.
Couple of things... for comparison
IRIX MIPSPro 7.4.1m
CC -O3 -o test.IRIX test.cpp
Linux gcc 3.2.3
gcc32 -O3 -o test.Linux test.cpp -lstdc++
ls -l test.*
-rw-rw-r-- 1 hxpro hxpro 101 Apr 6 17:37 test.cpp
-rwxrwxr-x 1 hxpro hxpro 22308 Apr 6 17:38 test.IRIX
-rwxrwxr-x 1 hxpro hxpro 3896 Apr 6 17:39 test.Linux
So cygwin support is obviously adding a lot to that compile you did.
I also disagree with your size doesn't matter, we generally don't run
*users* machines with less than 2GB RAM, and over half a TB disk, but
if every feature we added to our code added 200K for something as
small as options parsing we'd be avoiding it due to the fact that when
you scale that up to hundreds of machines accessing a server that
could easily eat a good percentage of the bandwidth even over Gig-E.
-- | Kevin Wheatley | These are the opinions of | | Senior Do-er of Technical Things | nobody and are not shared | | Cinesite (Europe) Ltd | by my employers |
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk