Hi, here's a list of Falcon compiler options that could be added to [1]. I think an initial copy-paste could be enough for a "first pass", although I guess the older options should come from other sources like the one from Andrew's links or this other one [2]:
[1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLEX/Getting+Started+with+the+Falcon+and+FalconJX+Compilers [2] http://renaun.com/blog/2006/08/list-of-mxmlccompc-arguments/ El lun, 23 nov 2020 a las 23:23, Andrew Wetmore (<cottag...@gmail.com>) escribió: > There are quite a few options. Maybe the most likely ones should be on the > page you were editing, and we can add the other to a sub page. > > a > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 6:19 PM Andrew Wetmore <cottag...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > @Josh Tynjala <joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev> did you check this page [1]? > If > > not, I can scrape from it. > > > > a > > > > 1. http://www.docsultant.com/site2/articles/flex_cmd.html > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 6:14 PM Andrew Wetmore <cottag...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> I guess I better jump on that before it all melts away. I probably have > >> some in some crackly downloads from a decade ago, unless I used them to > >> feed a fire. > >> > >> Great work, Josh! > >> > >> a > >> > >> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 6:07 PM Josh Tynjala <joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev > > > >> wrote: > >> > >>> I've added all of the new export-* and prevent-rename-* options, > >>> including > >>> descriptions. I also added several more options that I saw were > missing. > >>> > >>> Eventually, someone needs to fill in this page with *all* of the > missing > >>> options. Especially the core options that already existed during the > Flex > >>> days. Adobe has pulled down most of its Flex documentation now, and I'm > >>> not > >>> sure that the Apache version of Flex ever had them fully documented > >>> either. > >>> Soon, there may be no documentation for these options anywhere on the > >>> web, > >>> even for someone persistent and knowledgeable enough to look for legacy > >>> content. > >>> > >>> Most of the missing options may be found in this compiler class > >>> (descriptions of each option are usually in jsdoc comments): > >>> > >>> > https://github.com/apache/royale-compiler/blob/develop/compiler-common/src/main/java/org/apache/royale/compiler/config/Configuration.java > >>> > >>> There are likely some more JS-specific options that are not documented > >>> yet > >>> in these compiler classes too: > >>> > >>> > https://github.com/apache/royale-compiler/blob/develop/compiler-jx/src/main/java/org/apache/royale/compiler/clients/JSConfiguration.java > >>> > >>> > https://github.com/apache/royale-compiler/blob/develop/compiler-jx/src/main/java/org/apache/royale/compiler/internal/driver/js/goog/JSGoogConfiguration.java > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Josh Tynjala > >>> Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 1:08 PM Josh Tynjala < > joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> > I'll try to fill in the details soon. > >>> > > >>> > -- > >>> > Josh Tynjala > >>> > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 11:42 AM Andrew Wetmore <cottag...@gmail.com > > > >>> > wrote: > >>> > > >>> >> I have added a section that includes the four compiler options that > >>> Carlos > >>> >> mentioned. If there are more that, when used, reduce output size, > they > >>> >> should go there. I have not populated the descriptions, as a smart > >>> person > >>> >> should do that. > >>> >> > >>> >> a > >>> >> > >>> >> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 3:23 PM Andrew Wetmore <cottag...@gmail.com > > > >>> >> wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >> > Yes, that page is a good location. Should we start a subsection > for > >>> >> these > >>> >> > options which have the benefit of reducing output size? > >>> >> > > >>> >> > a > >>> >> > > >>> >> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 1:48 PM Carlos Rovira < > >>> carlosrov...@apache.org> > >>> >> > wrote: > >>> >> > > >>> >> >> Hi Josh, > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> thanks for working on this. I finally could get here after weeks > of > >>> >> hard > >>> >> >> work in other things with almost not time. > >>> >> >> I tried in Tour de Jewel with: > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> -export-public-symbols=false > >>> >> >> -prevent-rename-protected-symbols=false > >>> >> >> -prevent-rename-internal-symbols=false > >>> >> >> -prevent-rename-public-static-methods=false > >>> >> >> -prevent-rename-public-instance-methods=false > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> (for what I read that's the set it can be used without breaking > >>> app) > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> and a downsize from 1045kb to 910kb so amazing! :) > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> I'll try to add to TodoMVC as well and see what happens ;) > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> @Andrew I think you and Josh can add this doc to the Royale Docs > >>> >> compiler > >>> >> >> options page here [1] > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> [1] > https://apache.github.io/royale-docs/compiler/compiler-options > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> El mar, 10 nov 2020 a las 23:36, Josh Tynjala (< > >>> >> joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev > >>> >> >> >) > >>> >> >> escribió: > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Hi Andrew, > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > Yes, I can help with that! > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > -- > >>> >> >> > Josh Tynjala > >>> >> >> > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev> > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 3:22 PM Andrew Wetmore < > >>> cottag...@gmail.com> > >>> >> >> wrote: > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > > Josh, this is very interesting. I would like to include an > >>> >> actionable > >>> >> >> > > amount of this information in our user documentation. If I > >>> create a > >>> >> >> page > >>> >> >> > in > >>> >> >> > > the help docs for it, can you help me populate instructions > >>> based > >>> >> on > >>> >> >> your > >>> >> >> > > researchs? > >>> >> >> > > > >>> >> >> > > Thanks! > >>> >> >> > > > >>> >> >> > > Andrew > >>> >> >> > > > >>> >> >> > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 6:16 PM Josh Tynjala < > >>> >> >> joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev> > >>> >> >> > > wrote: > >>> >> >> > > > >>> >> >> > > > Hi all, > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > Some of you have probably been wondering about my changes > to > >>> the > >>> >> >> > compiler > >>> >> >> > > > over the last year or more. I apologize again for > >>> occasionally > >>> >> >> breaking > >>> >> >> > > > things for short periods. It's been quite a challenge > getting > >>> >> this > >>> >> >> > stuff > >>> >> >> > > > working, but I'm excited to finally be able to report some > >>> real > >>> >> >> > > > improvements that pretty much anyone should be able to take > >>> >> >> advantage > >>> >> >> > of > >>> >> >> > > > when building a Royale app. > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > First some background. A while back, Harbs asked me to look > >>> into > >>> >> >> ways > >>> >> >> > of > >>> >> >> > > > reducing the file size of release builds. As you may know, > >>> we use > >>> >> >> > > Google's > >>> >> >> > > > Closure compiler to optimize our generated JavaScript. > >>> Closure > >>> >> can > >>> >> >> be > >>> >> >> > > very > >>> >> >> > > > aggressive in its optimizations, by renaming symbols > (things > >>> like > >>> >> >> > > variable > >>> >> >> > > > and function names) and removing "dead code" that is > >>> detected as > >>> >> >> never > >>> >> >> > > > being called. > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > Closure's optimizations are good, but they also require > >>> >> developers > >>> >> >> to > >>> >> >> > be > >>> >> >> > > > very careful about how they write their JavaScript code. > >>> When you > >>> >> >> > enable > >>> >> >> > > > Closure's full optimizations, you are not allowed to use > >>> certain > >>> >> >> > > JavaScript > >>> >> >> > > > features because Closure cannot analyze them properly. For > >>> >> instance, > >>> >> >> > > > consider the following code: > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > var propName= "myProp"; > >>> >> >> > > > var value = obj[propName]; > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > When you dynamically access a property with a string, > Closure > >>> >> cannot > >>> >> >> > > > reliably know that the property exists and will be accessed > >>> at > >>> >> >> runtime. > >>> >> >> > > It > >>> >> >> > > > may decide to rename or remove that property, which would > >>> break > >>> >> >> things > >>> >> >> > at > >>> >> >> > > > runtime. > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > ActionScript supports many of the same restricted dynamic > >>> >> features > >>> >> >> too, > >>> >> >> > > so > >>> >> >> > > > if you want to support the entire AS3 language, we can't > let > >>> >> >> Closure do > >>> >> >> > > its > >>> >> >> > > > full optimization. Luckily, Closure also provides a bit of > a > >>> >> >> backdoor: > >>> >> >> > it > >>> >> >> > > > allows you to "export" symbols, which means that they won't > >>> be > >>> >> >> renamed > >>> >> >> > > and > >>> >> >> > > > they won't be removed as dead code. Traditionally, we have > >>> made > >>> >> >> heavy > >>> >> >> > use > >>> >> >> > > > of this exporting feature in Royale. > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > Harbs wanted to know if we absolutely needed to export > >>> everything > >>> >> >> that > >>> >> >> > we > >>> >> >> > > > currently export, and if we could potentially allow > >>> developers to > >>> >> >> turn > >>> >> >> > > off > >>> >> >> > > > exporting entirely, as long as they follow the stricter > rules > >>> >> >> required > >>> >> >> > by > >>> >> >> > > > Closure. > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > I won't go into all of the details, but over the last > several > >>> >> >> months, > >>> >> >> > > I've > >>> >> >> > > > been changing the compiler to give developers more control > >>> over > >>> >> >> release > >>> >> >> > > > builds. In particular, control over which symbols get > >>> exported, > >>> >> but > >>> >> >> > also > >>> >> >> > > > the ability to block Closure from renaming symbols that > >>> haven't > >>> >> been > >>> >> >> > > > exported. > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > Now, for some of the results. I'm going to share the output > >>> file > >>> >> >> size > >>> >> >> > of > >>> >> >> > > > the release build for several Royale projects with various > >>> >> different > >>> >> >> > > > compiler options. > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > For the example projects included with Royale, I built > >>> >> royale-asjs > >>> >> >> > commit > >>> >> >> > > > 94f12ed0e564b0b443834400dc2fc06d61b90a8a from October 26, > >>> 2020. > >>> >> If > >>> >> >> you > >>> >> >> > > want > >>> >> >> > > > to try building these examples yourself, the file sizes of > >>> >> release > >>> >> >> > builds > >>> >> >> > > > may be slightly different, if you use a different commit. > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > SpectrumBrowser is a project developed by Harbs and his > >>> team. I > >>> >> used > >>> >> >> > > commit > >>> >> >> > > > d25a3def972b15ec029ae838f1a8a677d2d158bd from October 20 > for > >>> the > >>> >> >> > results > >>> >> >> > > > below. Repo: https://github.com/unhurdle/spectrum-royale/ > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > To establish a baseline, I built all of these projects with > >>> the > >>> >> >> older > >>> >> >> > > > Royale 0.9.7 compiler first. > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > ========== > >>> >> >> > > > Baseline: royale-compiler 0.9.7 > >>> >> >> > > > ========== > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > HelloWorld: 68 KB > >>> >> >> > > > ASDoc: 231 KB > >>> >> >> > > > TourDeJewel: 1074 KB > >>> >> >> > > > SpectrumBrowser: 900 KB > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > Again, I am building the same AS3/MXML code every time, but > >>> these > >>> >> >> first > >>> >> >> > > > numbers are from building with the older compiler. All apps > >>> build > >>> >> >> and > >>> >> >> > run > >>> >> >> > > > successfully. > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > ----- > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > The rest of the results are built with royale-compiler > commit > >>> >> >> > > > df8bd9f686f1bbf89539e545377b2797c646172c from November 3. > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > All results below include the difference in KB and %. These > >>> >> values > >>> >> >> are > >>> >> >> > > > always in comparison to the baseline numbers above. > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > ========== > >>> >> >> > > > Result 1: 0.9.8 default options > >>> >> >> > > > ========== > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > HelloWorld: 84 KB (+10 KB / +24%) > >>> >> >> > > > ASDoc: 254 KB (+23 KB / +10%) > >>> >> >> > > > TourDeJewel: 1105 KB (+31 KB / +3%) > >>> >> >> > > > SpectrumBrowser: 936 KB (+36 KB / +4%) > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > These examples are slightly larger when built with the > newer > >>> >> >> compiler. > >>> >> >> > > > That's expected. It's not ideal, but in the process of > >>> testing a > >>> >> >> > > multitude > >>> >> >> > > > of things to be sure that nothing had broken after my > >>> compiler > >>> >> >> > changes, I > >>> >> >> > > > discovered some cases where exporting a symbol didn't > >>> actually > >>> >> work > >>> >> >> > > > correctly in 0.9.7! To properly fix the bug and export > these > >>> >> >> symbols, > >>> >> >> > > there > >>> >> >> > > > was no choice but to make the file size a bit larger. > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > ========== > >>> >> >> > > > Result 2: Disable export > >>> >> >> > > > ========== > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > HelloWorld: 74 KB (+6 KB / +9%) > >>> >> >> > > > ASDoc: 227 KB (-4 KB / -2%) > >>> >> >> > > > TourDeJewel: 942 KB (-132 KB / -12%) > >>> >> >> > > > SpectrumBrowser: 882 KB (-18 KB / -2%) > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > In this round, I added the *-export-public-symbols=false* > >>> >> compiler > >>> >> >> > > option. > >>> >> >> > > > You may recall that I said earlier that I also modified the > >>> >> >> compiler to > >>> >> >> > > > allow a symbol not to be exported, but still prevent it > from > >>> >> being > >>> >> >> > > renamed. > >>> >> >> > > > With that in mind, -export-public-symbols=false basically > >>> tells > >>> >> the > >>> >> >> > > > compiler that it still can't rename things, but it is > >>> allowed to > >>> >> >> remove > >>> >> >> > > > what it perceives as dead code. > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > HelloWorld is still slightly larger than 0.9.7, but the > three > >>> >> other > >>> >> >> > > > examples are now slightly smaller than 0.9.7. > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > Most developers should be able to safely add > >>> >> >> > -export-public-symbols=false > >>> >> >> > > > to their compiler options when building a Royale app. The > >>> only > >>> >> time > >>> >> >> > that > >>> >> >> > > > you might still want this exporting is if you have external > >>> >> >> JavaScript > >>> >> >> > in > >>> >> >> > > > your page that isn't part of your Royale app, but it needs > to > >>> >> call > >>> >> >> > > > functions/classes in your Royale app. > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > ========== > >>> >> >> > > > Result 3: Allow non-public things to be renamed > >>> >> >> > > > ========== > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > HelloWorld: 72 KB (+4 KB / +6%) > >>> >> >> > > > ASDoc: 221 KB (-10 KB / -4%) > >>> >> >> > > > TourDeJewel: 918 KB (-156 KB / -15%) > >>> >> >> > > > SpectrumBrowser: 861 KB (-39 KB / -4%) > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > In this round, I used the following compiler options: > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > -export-public-symbols=false > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > >>> >> > >>> > *-prevent-rename-protected-symbols=false-prevent-rename-internal-symbols=false* > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > The two new options allow Closure compiler to rename > >>> protected > >>> >> and > >>> >> >> > > internal > >>> >> >> > > > symbols. Once again, HelloWorld is still slightly larger > than > >>> >> 0.9.7, > >>> >> >> > but > >>> >> >> > > > the other three examples have gotten smaller again. > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > While -prevent-rename-public-symbols=false exists too, we > >>> cannot > >>> >> use > >>> >> >> > it. > >>> >> >> > > > The examples would not work correctly at runtime. This > option > >>> >> would > >>> >> >> > > > probably work in a pure AS3 app, but our implementation of > >>> MXML > >>> >> in > >>> >> >> > Royale > >>> >> >> > > > uses dynamic language features that Closure restricts. > Unless > >>> >> that > >>> >> >> is > >>> >> >> > > > fixed, we need to avoid renaming certain public symbols. > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > Again, most developers should be able to add > >>> >> >> > > > -prevent-rename-protected-symbols=false > >>> >> >> > > > and -prevent-rename-internal-symbols=false to their Royale > >>> app's > >>> >> >> > compiler > >>> >> >> > > > options. You might need to prevent renaming of > >>> protected/internal > >>> >> >> > symbols > >>> >> >> > > > if you access them dynamically. However, in my experience, > >>> people > >>> >> >> are > >>> >> >> > > much > >>> >> >> > > > more likely to access public symbols dynamically. > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > ----- > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > ========== > >>> >> >> > > > Result 4: Allow public methods to be renamed > >>> >> >> > > > ========== > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > HelloWorld: 64 KB (-4 KB / -6%) > >>> >> >> > > > ASDoc: 206 KB (-25 KB / -11%) > >>> >> >> > > > TourDeJewel: 881 KB (-193 KB / -18%) > >>> >> >> > > > SpectrumBrowser: 828 KB (-72 KB / -8%) > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > In this round, I used the following compiler options: > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > -export-public-symbols=false > >>> >> >> > > > -prevent-rename-protected-symbols=false > >>> >> >> > > > -prevent-rename-internal-symbols=false > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > >>> >> > >>> > *-prevent-rename-public-static-methods=false-prevent-rename-public-instance-methods=false > >>> >> >> > > > * > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > The two new options allow Closure to rename methods that > are > >>> >> public. > >>> >> >> > Now, > >>> >> >> > > > all four examples are smaller than 0.9.7, and the file size > >>> >> >> difference > >>> >> >> > is > >>> >> >> > > > getting even more dramatic. > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > Once again, -prevent-rename-public-static-methods=false and > >>> >> >> > > > -prevent-rename-public-instance-methods=false should be > safe > >>> for > >>> >> >> most > >>> >> >> > > > developers to enable when compiling their Royale app. In my > >>> >> >> experience, > >>> >> >> > > > calling methods dynamically is rare. > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > ========== > >>> >> >> > > > More new compiler options > >>> >> >> > > > ========== > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > There are some additional new compiler options available, > but > >>> >> using > >>> >> >> > them > >>> >> >> > > is > >>> >> >> > > > likely to break most Royale apps. > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > -prevent-rename-public-static-variables=false > >>> >> >> > > > -prevent-rename-public-instance-variables=false > >>> >> >> > > > -prevent-rename-public-static-accessors=false > >>> >> >> > > > -prevent-rename-public-instance-accessors=false > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > These options control whether Closure allows variables or > >>> >> accessors > >>> >> >> > > > (getters and setters) to be renamed. There are also > >>> >> similarly-named > >>> >> >> > > options > >>> >> >> > > > for protected and internal symbols, if you want more > control > >>> over > >>> >> >> those > >>> >> >> > > > too, instead of using > >>> -prevent-rename-protected-symbols=false and > >>> >> >> > > > -prevent-rename-internal-symbols=false. > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > Unfortunately, renaming public variables/accessors is > >>> usually not > >>> >> >> > > possible > >>> >> >> > > > without breaking the app at runtime. In some apps, you > might > >>> be > >>> >> >> able to > >>> >> >> > > > allow public static members to be renamed. However, in my > >>> >> >> experience, > >>> >> >> > > > binding to static constants is pretty common, and renaming > >>> breaks > >>> >> >> those > >>> >> >> > > > bindings. > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > ========== > >>> >> >> > > > Next Steps > >>> >> >> > > > ========== > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > Ideally, I'd like to make it possible for developers to be > >>> able > >>> >> to > >>> >> >> tell > >>> >> >> > > > Closure that it's allowed to rename all symbols, including > >>> public > >>> >> >> > ones. I > >>> >> >> > > > believe that we could see even more file size savings in > >>> release > >>> >> >> builds > >>> >> >> > > if > >>> >> >> > > > Closure works with full optimizations for all symbols. > >>> Obviously, > >>> >> >> > > > ActionScript developers would be required to strictly > follow > >>> >> >> Closure's > >>> >> >> > > > rules, if they opt into renaming of public symbols, but > >>> that's a > >>> >> >> choice > >>> >> >> > > > that they should be allowed to make. > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > As I mentioned above, our implementation of MXML and > binding > >>> uses > >>> >> >> > dynamic > >>> >> >> > > > access, which is not compatible with Closure's full > >>> >> optimizations. > >>> >> >> To > >>> >> >> > > > support those optimizations, I will need to explore changes > >>> to > >>> >> how > >>> >> >> we > >>> >> >> > > > generate JS for MXML, and how it gets parsed at runtime. > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > We previously discussed this subject a bit in this older > >>> thread > >>> >> from > >>> >> >> > > > January 2020: > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > >>> >> > >>> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r843e55252e37967b71b1430a2a904719791d698f3e5e2a79de74e493%40%3Cdev.royale.apache.org%3E > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > At the time, I tried out some ideas that we came up with > >>> while > >>> >> >> > > > brainstorming, but all had various downsides that didn't > make > >>> >> for an > >>> >> >> > > > obvious winner. In the end, I decided to set further > >>> >> investigation > >>> >> >> > aside > >>> >> >> > > > and first focus on exporting/renaming stuff. Now, I'm ready > >>> to > >>> >> take > >>> >> >> a > >>> >> >> > > > second look with a fresh perspective, and maybe we'll have > >>> some > >>> >> new > >>> >> >> > ideas > >>> >> >> > > > to try. > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > ----- > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > That was really long, so thank you for reading, if you made > >>> it to > >>> >> >> the > >>> >> >> > > end! > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > TL;DR: By enabling certain, new compiler options, most > Royale > >>> >> >> > developers > >>> >> >> > > > can make their app release builds smaller. Additionally, I > >>> plan > >>> >> to > >>> >> >> keep > >>> >> >> > > > investigating, and I expect to find more ways to reduce > file > >>> >> size in > >>> >> >> > the > >>> >> >> > > > future. > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > -- > >>> >> >> > > > Josh Tynjala > >>> >> >> > > > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev> > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > >>> >> >> > > > >>> >> >> > > -- > >>> >> >> > > Andrew Wetmore > >>> >> >> > > > >>> >> >> > > http://cottage14.blogspot.com/ > >>> >> >> > > > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> -- > >>> >> >> Carlos Rovira > >>> >> >> Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC > >>> >> >> *Apache Software Foundation* > >>> >> >> http://about.me/carlosrovira > >>> >> >> > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > -- > >>> >> > Andrew Wetmore > >>> >> > > >>> >> > http://cottage14.blogspot.com/ > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > >>> >> -- > >>> >> Andrew Wetmore > >>> >> > >>> >> http://cottage14.blogspot.com/ > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Andrew Wetmore > >> > >> http://cottage14.blogspot.com/ > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > -- > > Andrew Wetmore > > > > http://cottage14.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Andrew Wetmore > > http://cottage14.blogspot.com/ > -- Carlos Rovira Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC *Apache Software Foundation* http://about.me/carlosrovira
