Re: [boost] Lighweight header-only version of Boost.Filesystem?

Subject: Re: [boost] Lighweight header-only version of Boost.Filesystem?
From: Mathias Gaunard (mathias.gaunard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-08-19 11:17:51

On 19/08/2011 17:04, Matthew Chambers wrote:

> Do you mean you made your own abstraction over the OS functions?

I implemented something similar to the directory_iterator and other 
functions from filesystem.
My interface is not exactly the same since I didn't bother with the path 
class, and made its members free functions on strings instead.

> What is
> the difference in size?

My executable went from 2.2 MB to 63 kB (unstripped).
But then I've also removed program_options at the same time.
I think that with just filesystem I went down to 300 kB or less.

This definitely needs more testing and "profiling".

> Have you considered runtime-link=shared?

The numbers I gave were with the standard C and C++ libraries linked 
dynamically.

> And how
> is Python not portable across operating systems? :)

I cannot rely on it being installed everywhere.
I can rely on being able to run an executable with no dependencies though.