On Oct 21, 10:31 am, "Kenton Varda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yeah, protocol buffers were designed for servers where we often have absurd
> binary sizes already and don't mind that much. I'm certainly open to the
> idea of creating a stripped-down implementation -- though this isn't
> something I'd have time to work on myself.
> It might also help to look for uses of templates in the current library and
> see if binary size can be reduced by avoiding them. Also, if you statically
> link your binaries you may find that the linker is able to drop a lot of
> stuff from the library, making for a smaller binary in the end, so long as
> you weren't hoping to share the library between multiple binaries on the
> device.
Statically linking helped some. One executable was 200k without
protobuf.
With protobuf statically linked, it's about 800k. That's an increase
of 600k which is
better than the 1Meg dynamic libprotobuf library. But 600k is still
raising some
eyebrows of some embedded software guys around here. :( Anyway,
thanks
for the feedback.
David
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Protocol Buffers" group.
To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
