Re: Binary size of statically linked java application

[Marco Trudel <mtrudel at gmx dot ch>]

Lehner, Michael wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: java-owner@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:java-owner@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf
> Of
> > Marco Trudel
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 7:13 PM
> > To: Joel Dice
> > Cc: Lehner, Michael; gnustuff@thisiscool.com; java@gcc.gnu.org
> > Subject: Re: Binary size of statically linked java application
> >
> > > How many stubs did you need to write to cut out Swing, AWT,
> > 36. But the biggest part is because of AWTCallbackHandler and
> > SwingCallbackHandler. Removing these classes before compiling GCJ
> would
> > make real sense...
> >
> >
> > > and javax.crypto?
> > 15
>
> [Lehner, Michael] 
> I first tried to get away from AWT, this was very easy. I had to write 3
> classes and 4 functions I think.

Then you did something wrong and your executable is probably only about 
50kb smaller. It's not done by removing awt.o. There are about 30 
objects for awt...


> I think it would be helpful if there would be a libgcj.a, that means a
> classpath, without any implementation, but only empty functions.

I don't know what you mean by this...

> When
> minimizing de code you would only have to remove an original file from
> it and use instead the one with the same name from the other library
> with only the function names inside.

They still would have to be precompiled. So the only difference is that 
all objects are now in an archive and you suggest to put them into a 
directory. Doesn't change that much (unless I understand you wrong).
Anyway, you can keep the original libgcj.a as I described earlier. So, 
you have to do even less than in the solution you suggest. Just add the 
stub and the classes won't be pulled in... No need to replace files or 
jars or whatever...


Marco