This is the mail archive of the java@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the Java project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: stripping libgcj.so.4

From: Erik Poupaert <erik dot poupaert at freestyler-toolkit dot org>
To: Per Bothner <per at bothner dot com>
Cc: java at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 05:47:07 +0000
Subject: Re: stripping libgcj.so.4
Organization: Erik Poupaert
References: <20030917235055.77c9f6d6.erik.poupaert@skynet.be><Pine.LNX.4.44.0309172001350.24527-100000@ops2.one-point.com><20030918020812.389d15b8.erik.poupaert@skynet.be><20030921050408.4dd5c816.erik.poupaert@freestyler-toolkit.org><3F6D1F36.2010807@bothner.com>

> Why do you think stripping the excutable will have any effect on
> startup times and memory footprint?  It shouldn't.

I was looking at stripping libgcj.so itself, not really at stripping the executable.

Depending on how exactly the loading process goes, and to what extent it is cached
(I'm not familiar with the precise details of this process), loading 8 MB instead
of 40 MB of libgcj.so could conceivably be beneficial to startup time and memory
footprint? Or is there a reason why it hardly matters?

Follow-Ups:
- Re: stripping libgcj.so.4
  - From: Per Bothner
- Re: stripping libgcj.so.4
  - From: Andrew Haley

References:
- serverside programs
  - From: Erik Poupaert
- Re: serverside programs
  - From: Jeff Sturm
- Re: serverside programs
  - From: Erik Poupaert
- stripping libgcj.so.4
  - From: Erik Poupaert
- Re: stripping libgcj.so.4
  - From: Per Bothner

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]