Well, 11K (i.e. 2 seconds download at 56Kbit) is neither here nor there. 100K is more of an issue.
Anyway, Chris' response (AFAICT) implied that the size was not an issue, but cross-compilability was. Rob === ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gary R. Van Sickle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 6:20 PM Subject: RE: setup w/char* eliminated is big > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Pavel Tsekov > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 10:05 AM > > > > Robert Collins wrote: > > > > > Ok, > > > finally got some breathing time. > > > > > > Setup with char * eliminated is ~350K. Ouch. > > > > > > This is why I've not committed my patch yet (I've been trying to see > > > *where* the extra 100K appeared from). > > > > > > You have four 'inline' - I know they're small in size, but three of them > > are the most commonly used methods (the default and the copy constructor > > and also the 'operator ='). Remove the 'inline' modifier and see if the > > executable gets smaller. > > > > Done and done: > > CVS + "For the curious" patch + Two subsequent patches from Michael Chase == > 355840 bytes. > Above with all inlines "un-inlined" == 344576 bytes. > > So a bit over 11KB saved. In my judgement that's enough to warrant removing the > inlines; if string-handling speed is a significant factor for setup.exe I'd say > there's something wrong somewhere that no amount of inlines could remedy. > > -- > Gary R. Van Sickle > Brewer. Patriot. > >
