Re: Reduce size of 4GL executables

Interesting: that seems to be about 60% increase in time with shared libraries. I would have expected some overhead, but not that much. If you have a C program that spend 5 minutes doing computations using extensive function calls, do you get a similarly large difference between shared and static libraries? I4GL makes lots and lots of function calls, of course. Yours, Jonathan Leffler (johnl@informix.com) #include <disclaimer.h> }From: clay@panix.com (Clay Irving) }Date: 11 Mar 1996 15:03:46 -0500 }X-Informix-List-Id: <news.21978> } }In <4hq71d$6cc@cssun.mathcs.emory.edu> johnl@informix.com (Jonathan Leffler) writes: } }>Check what the c4gl script does when you use the -shared option. It should }>link with the I4GL shared library -- if that port had it. } }>The default was still to use static by default -- because it always had }>been. I disagreed with that, but was over-ruled. Set environment variable }>C4GLFLAGSto include '-shared' to ensure that shared libraries are always }>used. } }Reducing the size of the executable seems to be at the expense of }speed -- One of our programmer ran this test: } }About C4GLFLAGS = -shared } }I ran cp.4gm/o_oplan.4gs - report in 2 modes: } }1. Without dynamic link and it took: } }real 7m32.53s }user 5m49.48s }sys 0m19.48s } }2. With dynamic link and it took: } }real 10m24.92s }user 8m29.84s }sys 0m19.65s } }This showed us that we gain space and memory, but we }are loosing time almost 50%. } }Clay Irving, N2VKG : }clay@panix.com : Some mornings it just doesn't seem worth it }http://www.panix.com/clay : to gnaw through the leather straps...