On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 12:26:31AM +0100, Emilio Jes??s Gallego Arias wrote: > Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > The only (very minor) drawback is that above haskell scripts when > > compiled is about 7MB in size, but the huge gain in reliability > > I think you're somewhat joking about using Haskell, but your script > weights:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/tmp$ ls -lh a.out > -rwxr-xr-x 1 egallego egallego 182K 2006-01-30 00:19 a.out > > This is including all the Haskell runtime. Using a shared runtime > would be the optimal solution, as the compiled module is about 9Kb > (without stripping): Interestingly the size is highly dependent on the architecture: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ls -l postrm-* -rwxr-xr-x 1 ballombe ballombe 6960782 Jan 30 14:10 postrm-amd64 -rwxr-xr-x 1 ballombe ballombe 266065 Jan 30 14:09 postrm-i386 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ strip postrm* [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ls -l postrm-* -rwxr-xr-x 1 ballombe ballombe 4702544 Jan 30 14:10 postrm-amd64 -rwxr-xr-x 1 ballombe ballombe 156720 Jan 30 14:10 postrm-i386 (This is sarge ghc6) > However, AFAIK GHC doesn't support sharing the runtime. IIRC, The FAQ says the runtime ABI is too fragile to be practical to have a shared runtime. Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
