FreeOrion

I ask because the boost.python stuff is template heavy and requires huge amounts of memory to compile.
By splitting the wrapper into smaller parts, I managed to reduce the memory requirement from 700 MB to about 300, so my laptop can compile FO (instead of spending 95% of the time with swapping)

I could split the code even further, but that would make it hard to read. This is why i ask if any of you programmers only haves 128M or so.

my machine has 768MB ram.

But as we compile fo very often, i hope you tweak it to the max. I don't want wasting time while waiting fo to be compiled.

Time is an issue, ram not.

_________________
Press any key to continue or any other key to cancel.
Can COWs fly?

How much does your machine need to compile the boost::spirit part of FO (XMLDoc.cpp & GGFileDlg.cpp) ? And how big are the final executable you get (server, client, ai)? I'm just curious. Because on macosx with all debug symbols and no optimizations i get:
freeorionclient : 140mb!!!!
server:72mb
ai:42mb

with no debug symbols at all and Optimizationslevel -O3 (except XMLDoc.cpp & GGFIleDlg which can only be compiled with -O0):
client: 11mb!!! still to big
server, a:i haven't tested that yet

And the additional libraries like: libGG, SDL, freetype, boost, etc..
do you link them dynamic or as static libs into the executable?

Would be really cool to know what the average size is, because i think what i get is way to big.

Try a strip -g or strip -s on the files, it seems that there are still some debugging symbols left.

Mine: With debugging:
client 86 MB
AI 39 MB
server 71 MB

after strip -g
client 4MB
AI 1,8MB
server 4,3MB

Edit: I checked compilation of XMLDoc and GGFileDlg. Both compilations peak at 145MB total memory usage. (GCC 3.3.4 Debian patchlevel -11 , optimization: -O2)

and how are you linking the libraries into the binaries? dynamic or static?

thanks for the hint. strip brought the client down to 6mb.
By the way this upx you told me about. There is no darwin/macosx version. And as it makes extensive use of assembler it won't be portable without deeper knowledge of the systems excecutable file format and the loading mechanism. And i would have to update my lacking knowledge in assembler. The last time i touched it was many years ago on a 386Pc (never got an understanding on how to use dos-protected mode so i gave up;). Is there any other executable packer solution?