On Dec 3, 2012, at 14:10 , Jonathan Kew wrote: > On 3/12/12 20:11, Mike Hommey wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 02:48:06PM -0500, Benjamin Smedberg wrote: >>> On 12/3/2012 2:32 PM, Norbert Lindenberg wrote: >>>> As part of implementing the ECMAScript Internationalization API [1, 2] in >>>> SpiderMonkey, and as an aid in internationalizing other functionality in >>>> Mozilla products [3], I need to integrate the ICU library (International >>>> Components for Unicode [4]) into the source tree and the build. >>> This has been brought up many times over the years, and each time >>> previously we decided not to import ICU. At first, the license was >>> incompatible; that has since been fixed. Now the question is mainly >>> about whether the features ICU provides are worth the really cost in >>> terms of binary size. >>> >>> How much size does ICU cost, if we took the entire library? How much >>> of that is data (which can be shared in 32/64 mac universal builds) >>> and how much is code which cannot be shared? >> >> ICU doesn't come with data files. Data is enclosed in libraries, and >> such data is not shared between the 32-bits and 64-bits parts of >> universal binaries. > > Actually, ICU has several options for how its data is packaged. One option is > libraries (which are not sharable between architectures, AFAIK), but another > possibility is to use data package (.dat) files, which I believe *could* be > shared between the 32- and 64-bit builds.
How important is this on Macs? My ICU build compresses to about 4MB, so even if we double everything, it's about 8MB. Apple routinely sends software updates with hundreds of MB, with some recent ones going above 1GB. Norbert _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
