Re: gcj executable size reduction?

[David Daney <ddaney at avtrex dot com>]

David Daney wrote:

> 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.

Nix that.  I should probably think these things out before I post.  Just 
use a dummy AccessController, and leave everything that uses it alone.  
But it looks like AccessContoller already does nothing.  So what you 
would want is the option to keep the current version if a working 
version is ever written...

David Daney.