Compilation size

[Iain Johnstone]

I have an application that has a compiled size of 815616 bytes
when compiled under Win2K, but is 817152 under W95/98. As I
have hit the limit of the 16 bit compiler (again) every spare
byte is of value - there are already 11 DLL's supporting this
program, and it is not possible to remove any more code from
the main program. Where has this small saving come from?

As W2K handles 16 bit programs in a different way, I shall try
to compile the main program with the extra bits that I require
added to it. What plans are there for a 32 bit compiler?

Iain Johnstone

------------------

[Lance Edmonds]

I'm not aware that there are any significant differences produced by compiling on different platforms. Are you sure identical source code and compiler was used in those two compilations?

Really, the disk image size has no real bearing on the "limit" (ie, resources impact EXE size, and can be many Mb's in size, etc). Usually the current compiler will run out of 16-bit memory if the symbol table uses up all available 16-bit process memory (which is approx 16Mb).

Splitting the main code into one "main" module with one or more #INCLUDE files is one way forward, but you can also eliminate unused labels, subs, functions and variables from the code, and reduce the length of very long variable and label names. These things all reduce the memory requirements during compilation and can allow code for a single EXE or DLL to grow a bit further.

While a few people seem to be "obsessed" with the 16-bit nature of the compiler itself (and while a 32-bit app would be nice), I'll say this again: just because the compiler is itself a 16-bit app does not mean it cannot be "adjusted" to compile much larger applications. Quite possibly the next version will allow compilation of much larger applications... we'll have to see what R&D come up with.

------------------
Lance
PowerBASIC Support
mailto:[email protected][email protected]</A>