Re: gcj executable size reduction?

[David Daney <ddaney at avtrex dot com>]

David Daney wrote:

> Per Bothner wrote:
>
> > Another (complementary) approach is reducing the interdependencies 
> > between classes, so a static linker would not link in quite as much 
> > junk.    This might be to be a confiuration option, or we could 
> > support various "profiles" like J2ME.  Any experience in untangling 
> > dependencies?
> >
> > Comments?  Where should I start?
>
>
> One thing I have been thinking about (but not acting on), is the 
> interdependency problem.
>
> For some environments, security is not important, but I think there is 
> quite a large overhead with security related classes.  Off the top of 
> my head I would do something like this:
>
> Create a new java.lang.SecurityManager implementation where all checks 
> just return.  This should prevent all the *Permission classes and 
> related cruft from being linked in.

Thinking about it more, this would not work.  We really need a 
preprocessor for java...

What would also be required would be to also go through all the 
runtime's classes and hack out all AccessController usage.  Although a 
quick grep of the sources shows that AccessController is probably not 
used nearly as often as it should be in a standards complient 
implementation.

David Daney.