anks.
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve
wrote:
> Are you wrapping many trivial (member) functions?
>
>
>
> - Original Message
> From: Renato Araujo
> To: Development of Python/C++ integration
> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 6:16:59 AM
&
Are you wrapping many trivial (member) functions?
- Original Message
From: Renato Araujo
To: Development of Python/C++ integration
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 6:16:59 AM
Subject: Re: [C++-sig] bindings size
I'm already using this. This help but I need reduce more becaus
I'm already using this. This help but I need reduce more because the
python binding is about four times bigger then c++ library.
Thanks
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Niall Douglas
wrote:
> Have you tried -fvisibility=hidden on GCC? That chomps a good few
> megabyte off my bindings.
>
> Cheer
Have you tried -fvisibility=hidden on GCC? That chomps a good few
megabyte off my bindings.
Cheers,
Niall
On 23 Jan 2009 at 15:51, Renato Araujo wrote:
> hi David,
>
> This size is about my library, when I use "class_" and ".def()"
> templates from libboost_python. And about the g++ flags I us
hi David,
This size is about my library, when I use "class_" and ".def()"
templates from libboost_python. And about the g++ flags I use -Os
which includes most of the flags for size optimizations. I tried with
others flags but the difference is minimum, nothing significant.
Thanks
On Fri, Jan 23
on Fri Jan 23 2009, Renato Araujo wrote:
> I'm current using "CXXFLAGS=-ffunction-sections -Os" and "LDFLAGS
> --gc-sections", and the library already striped, without strip the
> size is about 12MB.
There's a lot more you can do. -fomit-frame-pointer,
-finline-functions, ...man gcc, man
Ther
I'm current using "CXXFLAGS=-ffunction-sections -Os" and "LDFLAGS
--gc-sections", and the library already striped, without strip the
size is about 12MB.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 1:31 PM, David Abrahams wrote:
>
> on Fri Jan 23 2009, Renato Araujo wrote:
>
>> hi all,
>> After some vacation I got
on Fri Jan 23 2009, Renato Araujo wrote:
> hi all,
> After some vacation I got back to my library binding. Most problems
> have been solved
> but now I got another big problem here. My current binding library is very
> huge
> compared to the wrapped C++ library (about four times). Checking the
hi all,
After some vacation I got back to my library binding. Most problems
have been solved
but now I got another big problem here. My current binding library is very huge
compared to the wrapped C++ library (about four times). Checking the
code I found
that the components responsible for a great
