On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 21:03:05 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> Sounds good then.
>
> The optimization levels were kind of a mess that we "inherited" from the old
> build system, were they had just agglutinated over the years, probably dating
> back to Java 1.0, with nobody left around to remembe
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 08:51:43 GMT, Matthias Baesken wrote:
> Looks like the binary size optimization flags are not ideal when compiling
> with MSVC.
> On other compilers (gcc/clang) the current size optimization flags lead in
> most cases to smaller libraries. On MSVC this seems to be not the cas
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 08:51:43 GMT, Matthias Baesken wrote:
> Looks like the binary size optimization flags are not ideal when compiling
> with MSVC.
> On other compilers (gcc/clang) the current size optimization flags lead in
> most cases to smaller libraries. On MSVC this seems to be not the cas
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 13:30:46 GMT, Julian Waters wrote:
> splashscreen already uses LOW for its optimization flags though. Is the
> intent to change it to SIZE for all compilers?
LOW uses NORM and this is already O1
`C_O_FLAG_NORM="-O1"`
so for Windows switching to SIZE won't change anything a
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 08:51:43 GMT, Matthias Baesken wrote:
> Looks like the binary size optimization flags are not ideal when compiling
> with MSVC.
> On other compilers (gcc/clang) the current size optimization flags lead in
> most cases to smaller libraries. On MSVC this seems to be not the cas
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 12:53:05 GMT, Daniel Jeliński wrote:
> No libraries are optimized for size by default.
True, it is at the moment only for opt-size / jvm.dll .
In future I plan to create a PR for libsplashscreen using SIZE optimization,
but currently this would lead to a larger (!) lib with
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 08:51:43 GMT, Matthias Baesken wrote:
> Looks like the binary size optimization flags are not ideal when compiling
> with MSVC.
> On other compilers (gcc/clang) the current size optimization flags lead in
> most cases to smaller libraries. On MSVC this seems to be not the cas
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 08:51:43 GMT, Matthias Baesken wrote:
> Looks like the binary size optimization flags are not ideal when compiling
> with MSVC.
> On other compilers (gcc/clang) the current size optimization flags lead in
> most cases to smaller libraries. On MSVC this seems to be not the cas
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 08:51:43 GMT, Matthias Baesken wrote:
> Looks like the binary size optimization flags are not ideal when compiling
> with MSVC.
> On other compilers (gcc/clang) the current size optimization flags lead in
> most cases to smaller libraries. On MSVC this seems to be not the cas
