On Mon, 04 Aug 2008, Szakáts Viktor wrote: Hi Viktor,
> and one more: as hbrun seems to be the more > widespread and even xhb compatible exectuable > name, and it might also be referred by scripts, > I'd rather recommend to rename hbdot to hbrun, > and drop current hbrun. hbdot cannot cleanly execute .hrb files yet but of course it can be quite easy added. In POSIX we can even create hbdot link to hbrun for backward compatibility and to force interactive mode when run without parameters: it's enough to check hb_argv(0). > [ One such .exe is 1.5-2MB large depending on > the platform/compiler. ] The size is important only in static builds. In shared builds (make_rpm*.sh, make_tgz.sh) both binaries are linked with harbour shared library (.dll, .so, .dyn, .sa, ...) and the size is much smaller ~150KB and most of this is symbol table with all hbextern definitions which also can be eliminated. We should only create new hbextern library and add it to harbour shared library. Now in shared library all .prg functions are accessible even without including hbextern.ch because .prg code automatically registers all used symbols. It does not happen for .c code so Harbour functions written in C which are not accessed directly by some .prg code are not registered in HVM by harbour.dll startup code. Such hbextern library can resolve this problem and I would like to add it even only for this. hbrun without #include "hbextern.ch" linked but with harbour.so having all hbextern symbols has only 5KB. For me it's not a problem if we will have two tools with such small size. Anyhow before we remove one of them IMHO we should add hbextern library and try to add support for shared builds for non GCC conpuilers. best regards, Przemek _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
