Re: [javaCompiler-users] one more feature request :)

[Marco T. <mt...@gm...>]

>  Marco"
> 
> I wasn't sure if it existed either for gcj but then I
> manually compiled a program and it accepted the flag.
> Right away I noticed the optimized binary was 2 mb
> less than the non optimized one.

What? But then you didn't strip, right?
If I strip and upx my current project, it will get:
- with no -O, 3.96
- with -O2, 3.84 (sometimes 3.94)
- with -Os, 3.94

This are the best resulst. The binaries will not always have the same 
size. I guess upx is trying some random compressing methods...

So, I think -O2 will be the best because it doesn't really affect the 
size but the performance will be really better...


> The optimized binary
> also performs nearly 300% quicker in parsing a 25k xml
> document (from 1205 ms to 430ms). 

cool :-)


> I think it would be nice to remove the xml stuff from
> the binary in all situations since most people will
> typically want to use their own xml parser. As far as
> the AWT/Swing stuff, I believe what that guy at
> thisiscool.com did was to compile different versions
> of "libgcj". One with Swing/AWT stripped out and one
> with that "SwingWT" library included. Here's a quote
> from his site: "To integrate SwingWT, I first
> surgically removed the GNU AWT and Swing sources from
> the libgcj build (see noawt.diff in the patch list
> below)." 
> Not sure how difficult it would be to do that.

Yes, he removed AWT/Swing. But what he did doesn't work with gcj 4.2. If 
I've some time left, I'll try to do it myself... I'm really interested 
how much the binaries will shrink... 0.5mb? 1mb? That would be great...


Marco