Re: A note on binary size...

2001-07-13 Thread Lars Gullik Bjønnes
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | We are using string literals all over the place... we are... but we don't store them that way... -- Lgb

Re: A note on binary size...

2001-07-13 Thread Andre Poenitz
> think unicode and say that again... "Lars will start shouting" > and no... char* is never the answer. We are using string literals all over the place... Andre' PS: Okok, I won't do it. -- André Pönitz . [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: A note on binary size...

2001-07-13 Thread Lars Gullik Bjønnes
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | But most of matheds string usage is pretty static, so there might be a few | places where const char * are appropriate... think unicode and say that again... and no... char* is never the answer. -- Lgb

Re: A note on binary size...

2001-07-13 Thread Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
> "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > Mathed alone went from 175k to 445k binary size (whereas the >> sources fell > from 11900 to 10700 LOC) between May 2000 and today >> >> Ahhh! It's your fault! (I know it's Friday, no smileys!) On a 64bit >> machine that'll be a cha

Re: A note on binary size...

2001-07-13 Thread Andre Poenitz
> > Mathed alone went from 175k to 445k binary size (whereas the sources fell > > from 11900 to 10700 LOC) between May 2000 and today > > Ahhh! It's your fault! (I know it's Friday, no smileys!) On a 64bit machine > that'll be a change from 350k to 900k which accounts for 60% of the increase >

Re: A note on binary size...

2001-07-13 Thread Angus Leeming
On Friday 13 July 2001 11:41, Andre Poenitz wrote: > > I guess that a lot of this is comming from the guii work, but sure use > > of stl helps. > > Mathed alone went from 175k to 445k binary size (whereas the sources fell > from 11900 to 10700 LOC) between May 2000 and today Ahhh! It's your faul

Re: A note on binary size...

2001-07-13 Thread Andre Poenitz
> I guess that a lot of this is comming from the guii work, but sure use > of stl helps. Mathed alone went from 175k to 445k binary size (whereas the sources fell from 11900 to 10700 LOC) between May 2000 and today Since mathed was virtually STL-free I'd attribute most of the size to it. But swi

Re: A note on binary size...

2001-07-13 Thread Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
> "Angus" == Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Angus> Well I can't remember when I made the switch to cxx 6.1 (and Angus> hence the ability to use std::string), but 1.1.6 was certainly Angus> compiled with it. So we've grown by 1MB since then. I have indeed similar numbers for 1.1.6

Re: A note on binary size...

2001-07-13 Thread Angus Leeming
On Friday 13 July 2001 10:42, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > > "Angus" == Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Angus> Just for reference, here are the sizes of the stripped binaries > Angus> of the last few versions of the code: > > Angus> -r-xr-xr-x 1 root system 2850816 May 2 2000

Re: A note on binary size...

2001-07-13 Thread Lars Gullik Bjønnes
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | The increase in size appears to be accelerating. Will this trend change or | should I buy a separate hard disk for future LyXs? Seriously, is this mainly | a consequence of moving to STL containers? | I guess that a lot of this is comming from the gu

Re: A note on binary size...

2001-07-13 Thread Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
> "Angus" == Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Angus> Just for reference, here are the sizes of the stripped binaries Angus> of the last few versions of the code: Angus> -r-xr-xr-x 1 root system 2850816 May 2 2000 Angus> /usr/local/bin/lyx114* -r-xr-xr-x 1 root system 3416064 Dec 8 A

A note on binary size...

2001-07-13 Thread Angus Leeming
Just for reference, here are the sizes of the stripped binaries of the last few versions of the code: -r-xr-xr-x 1 root system 2850816 May 2 2000 /usr/local/bin/lyx114* -r-xr-xr-x 1 root system 3416064 Dec 8 2000 /usr/local/bin/lyx115* -r-xr-xr-x 1 root system 4202496