OK, so using OBF reveals that its much closer than I thought, but
still disappointing that the code size didn't go DOWN:
1.5
647,568 C760DB4C26233F65E2579723CA7BE050.cache.html
1.4
634,399 EFB925C5F054962BC7951D976730A34A.cache.html
So 2% growth is not my issue. I was expecting/hoping for maybe a 20%
reduction since the linker should eliminate a bunch of unused/dead
code. I'm betting the new types for LinkedHashMap and
IdentityHashMap, etc. are being pulled in to cause some of the growth,
but who knows?
On Sep 4, 7:01 pm, Folke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sep 4, 3:42 pm, Kurt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > [..] DETAILED [..]
>
> Use OBF(USCATED) for a real comparison and PRETTY to see what's going
> on.
>
> > I'm thinking that method inlining is the culprit, but want to get a handle
> > on it.
> > Can anyone tell me what to look at in generating the compilation
> > output to narrow down why the app is now 10% larger?
>
> Yes, inlining is the "culprit", but there's also a lot of new code
> that adds more safety, like "long" emulation.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Google Web Toolkit" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
