On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 06:45:40PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote: > On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 06:27:28PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 05:57:06PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 03:43:01PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote: > > > > $ ls -l src/lyx*.exe > > > > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root 21148998 Oct 21 01:22 src/lyx.exe* > > > > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root 19975298 Sep 12 00:32 src/lyx-old.exe* > > > > > > > > So, today the executable size is 1Mb bigger than the size on > > > > September 12. To reproduce, follow the steps outlined at > > > > http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/LyXOnCygwin > > > > > > How big is Resources.o on your machine? > > > > > > It's 261k here. So it is not easily imaginable how it can increase the > > > binary size by more than that. > > > > > > And in fact, binary size is completely irrelevant here as immediately > > > after loading of the binary all the pngs were loaded, with a total size > > > of more than 1 MB. So in the end compiled-in resource lead to smaller > > > memory footprint. > > > > I investigated it, and discovered that I built the September 12 binary > > using Qt 4.2.3, while the current binary uses Qt 4.3.2. After rebuilding > > with the same Qt version, I now get an executable with size 20223734. > > So, the increase in size is only about 250Kb. Not a big deal, indeed. > > Heck, it is Qt 4.3.2 that increases the executable size by about 1Mb. > > So now a _shared_ object increases the size of your binary? > > Impressive.
I link Qt statically as there's no point using a shared object when only LyX is linked against it. Then, I stay compatible if/when an official Qt/X11 for cygwin appears. -- Enrico
