Development :
K-Meleon Web Browser Forum
On the Thunderbirdforum I had the same discussion.
This is what they explained:
A static build takes almost all of the many DLLs you see in the components directory of the program and links them all together directly into thunderbird.exe. If you compare the two builds you'll see the .EXE size on the static build is very large and very small on the non-static build.
By doing this, the OS doesn't have to spend so much time loading all these little DLLs into memory before the app comes up. And I believe it is faster to make calls within the statically linked .exe instead of crossing shared library boundaries but I could be marking that last part up.
Benefits of a static build: the code size is smaller. Both on disk and the download size of the windows installer. On some platforms, especially OS X, there is a big performance win with a static build.
When I see the filesize of the Kmeleon.exe I am almost sure this is a dynamic build. So when this is true, a static build would bring us even some more speed then the build we currently have.
Is it possible to make, for example, a static Ulf build and what are the advantages or disadvantages of that?? Is it with a static build still possible to use a plugin and kplugin directory and load the dll's in it when starting up? May be we can make a build with the standard kplugin plugin's already built-in, so they work fast and other dll's stored in the plugin directories?
May be there is a reason for it but I was wondering why I never heart something about static building on the KM-site.
Regards,
Jan.
hi Jan,
if possible this will be an option for people with better pc but not for all.
(means there must be one extra built, right?)
k-m will start slower & run faster (i presume) -and use slightly more resources -
this is ok to me! (i have 256 mb ram).
but who will make such an exe for about half or 1/4 of people in Forum?
probably for much less people!
as it is: we got test.exe only by freak chance!
If someone could make a statik linked thing as described = if not to much work?
i volunteer as guiny pig and see whether everything works.
best regards
I want to see a static build so that I can hide the application on my work computer. Our tech staff regularly uninstalls software we're not supposed to have like mp3 players etc.
About static builds, don't get your hopes high. Not many people have successfully compiled K-Meleon, and I don't know how hard it is to create a static build. (I'm also curious. If there's a programmer reading this, please tell us if creating a static build merely involves adding a compiler option or needs more work.)
Sneaky Pete,
Actually, you can put all the "softwares you're not supposed to have" in a USB drive; if you have one, that is.
Okay, to keep everyone informed; Dorian made a static build based on Moz1.8a1 and I am testing it now. First results are promising; on the testsite
http://www.24fun.com/downloadcenter/benchjs/benchjs.html
a first test did 8.35 sec.
I will test it further, may be a good start for a new optimized build???
Jan.
Initial tests seems to prove it to be more stable than the 1.7 test build. It's about 8MB though.
The binary alone.
I noticed the same memory-problem as in Firebird; after 10 minutes browsing KM uses 155MB of memory!!! Will test later this evening and check because I thought this problem was already solved.
Jan
Thx Dorian!
Jan. nothing unusual here on win ME.
I am pleased that You asked!
I will let You know when i tried on xp!
greetings
Okay, just found it. No memoryleaks at all.
When I go to the testsite http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/welcome/ to test my shockwave and flash, the memory-usage go up to about 150 mb.
Till now, I only see advantages. But we will test it further....
Greetings,
Jan
Anyone else having problems with the new builds, Ulf's & Dorian's, not exiting completely sometimes unless ID_APP_EXIT is used? The when ID_APP_EXIT is used a crash occurs.
No problem till now...
hody all,
jsnj, None here either. One of my old Mozillas does that on testing pages.
but will will keep an eye on it & let You know if.
Jan, mem usage on xp goes up when using applet too.
I notice that when running aplets from hdd - means very rappidly.
At the momemt Dorians looks a little like Jordans -> means has a lot of jars more.
(means that it will possibly be even better when stripped from surplus jars).
kind regards
K-Meleon development related discussions.
Static or dynamic???
Posted by:
Fast Sjonny
Date: June 14, 2004 01:53PM
On the Thunderbirdforum I had the same discussion.
This is what they explained:
A static build takes almost all of the many DLLs you see in the components directory of the program and links them all together directly into thunderbird.exe. If you compare the two builds you'll see the .EXE size on the static build is very large and very small on the non-static build.
By doing this, the OS doesn't have to spend so much time loading all these little DLLs into memory before the app comes up. And I believe it is faster to make calls within the statically linked .exe instead of crossing shared library boundaries but I could be marking that last part up.
Benefits of a static build: the code size is smaller. Both on disk and the download size of the windows installer. On some platforms, especially OS X, there is a big performance win with a static build.
When I see the filesize of the Kmeleon.exe I am almost sure this is a dynamic build. So when this is true, a static build would bring us even some more speed then the build we currently have.
Is it possible to make, for example, a static Ulf build and what are the advantages or disadvantages of that?? Is it with a static build still possible to use a plugin and kplugin directory and load the dll's in it when starting up? May be we can make a build with the standard kplugin plugin's already built-in, so they work fast and other dll's stored in the plugin directories?
May be there is a reason for it but I was wondering why I never heart something about static building on the KM-site.
Regards,
Jan.
Re: Static or dynamic???
Posted by:
guenter
Date: June 14, 2004 02:53PM
hi Jan,
if possible this will be an option for people with better pc but not for all.
(means there must be one extra built, right?)
k-m will start slower & run faster (i presume) -and use slightly more resources -
this is ok to me! (i have 256 mb ram).
but who will make such an exe for about half or 1/4 of people in Forum?
probably for much less people!
as it is: we got test.exe only by freak chance!
If someone could make a statik linked thing as described = if not to much work?
i volunteer as guiny pig and see whether everything works.
best regards
Re: Static or dynamic???
Posted by:
Sneaky Pete
Date: June 24, 2004 03:33PM
I want to see a static build so that I can hide the application on my work computer. Our tech staff regularly uninstalls software we're not supposed to have like mp3 players etc.
Re: Static or dynamic???
Posted by:
rmn
Date: June 25, 2004 11:12AM
About static builds, don't get your hopes high. Not many people have successfully compiled K-Meleon, and I don't know how hard it is to create a static build. (I'm also curious. If there's a programmer reading this, please tell us if creating a static build merely involves adding a compiler option or needs more work.)
Sneaky Pete,
Actually, you can put all the "softwares you're not supposed to have" in a USB drive; if you have one, that is.
Re: Static or dynamic???
Posted by:
Fast Sjonny
Date: July 12, 2004 04:19AM
Okay, to keep everyone informed; Dorian made a static build based on Moz1.8a1 and I am testing it now. First results are promising; on the testsite
http://www.24fun.com/downloadcenter/benchjs/benchjs.html
a first test did 8.35 sec.
I will test it further, may be a good start for a new optimized build???
Jan.
Re: Static or dynamic???
Posted by:
jsnj
Date: July 12, 2004 05:42AM
Initial tests seems to prove it to be more stable than the 1.7 test build. It's about 8MB though.
Re: Static or dynamic???
Posted by:
jsnj
Date: July 12, 2004 05:43AM
The binary alone.
Re: Static or dynamic???
Posted by:
Fast Sjonny
Date: July 12, 2004 07:23AM
I noticed the same memory-problem as in Firebird; after 10 minutes browsing KM uses 155MB of memory!!! Will test later this evening and check because I thought this problem was already solved.
Jan
Re: Static or dynamic???
Posted by:
guenter
Date: July 12, 2004 02:40PM
Thx Dorian!
Jan. nothing unusual here on win ME.
I am pleased that You asked!
I will let You know when i tried on xp!
greetings
Re: Static or dynamic???
Posted by:
Fast Sjonny
Date: July 12, 2004 04:11PM
Okay, just found it. No memoryleaks at all.
When I go to the testsite http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/welcome/ to test my shockwave and flash, the memory-usage go up to about 150 mb.
Till now, I only see advantages. But we will test it further....
Greetings,
Jan
Re: Static or dynamic???
Posted by:
jsnj
Date: July 12, 2004 08:31PM
Anyone else having problems with the new builds, Ulf's & Dorian's, not exiting completely sometimes unless ID_APP_EXIT is used? The when ID_APP_EXIT is used a crash occurs.
Re: Static or dynamic???
Posted by:
Fast Sjonny
Date: July 12, 2004 09:12PM
No problem till now...
Re: Static or dynamic???
Posted by:
guenter
Date: July 13, 2004 04:44AM
hody all,
jsnj, None here either. One of my old Mozillas does that on testing pages.
but will will keep an eye on it & let You know if.
Jan, mem usage on xp goes up when using applet too.
I notice that when running aplets from hdd - means very rappidly.
At the momemt Dorians looks a little like Jordans -> means has a lot of jars more.
(means that it will possibly be even better when stripped from surplus jars).
kind regards
English