Compiling "static" applications with SWT/GTK
Andrew Haley
aph@redhat.com
Wed Dec 3 10:28:00 GMT 2003
Bryce McKinlay writes:
> On Dec 1, 2003, at 11:19 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
> > That's not really true, because of Java's Class.forName. You have to
> > include all of libgcj, because the linker can't tell what might be
> > needed.
> >
> > As I have said here many times, the right thing to do is create a
> > configure tool that splits libgcj into a number of components and
> > allow the user to choose which ones they want. But it's quite hard to
> > solve the web of dependencies.
>
> I think splitting libgcj up into many small peices would introduce more
> problems than it solves.
It would. That is, of course, why I didn't suggest splitting libgcj
up into many small peices.
> My idea for static applications is to have a runtime option that
> dumps out a list of classes that are actually initialized/used by
> the application, which is then fed back into the compiler (and
> maybe combined with some static analysis) to generate an optimized
> static executable that contains only the required bits of the
> runtime.
Not a bad idea, but this seems very fragile. How would anyone know
for sure which classes an application needed? A few test runs
wouldn't do it.
Andrew.
More information about the Java
mailing list