Re: ORBit2 "embedded", e.g. on Zaurus/IPAQ?
- From: Dan Kegel <dank kegel com>
- To: dahaverk rockwellcollins com
- Cc: michael ximian com, ml knorke in-berlin de, orbit-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: ORBit2 "embedded", e.g. on Zaurus/IPAQ?
- Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 07:34:34 -0800
I'm starting to think glib is a monster that needs to be
broken up into parts to make it easier to avoid bloat.
I agree, IDL compiler output should be portable, but
it doesn't seem like a showstopper unless people want
to hand-edit its output.
- Dan
dahaverk@rockwellcollins.com wrote:
> How about a configure switch to turn off glib dependancy and use some of
> the system provided functions (i.e. malloc) etc. directly.?
>
> Just a thought because the dependancy on "glib" was a really big "pain"
> when I built ORBit2 for my target.
>
> Another thing that we've discovered is that it would be great if the IDL
> compiler build could be turned off. Part of the problem with the ORBit IDL
> that is generated is that it is uP Architecture specific. The IDL that is
> generated should NOT be specific to a platform. Look at OMNI ORB as an
> example. It can generate IDL on any platform that can be compiled by a
> cross compiler or directly on the host.
>
> -Dave
>
>
> Michael Meeks <michael@ximian.com>@gnome.org on 10/02/2002 wrote:>
>
> Hi Dan,
>
> On Tue, 2002-10-01 at 17:27, Dan Kegel wrote:
>
>>I tried. Cross-compiling was a pain; we contributed changes
>>to glib2 to help that.
>
>
> Did they get folded in in the end ?
>
>
>> Memory footprint was significantly
>>larger in glib2 than glib1, too.
>
>
> Strange; of course - we use a fairly small sub-set of what glib can do;
> so there's possibly lots of room for improvement there. Perhaps it would
> be possible to have a configure switch to make a suitably small glib for
> you ...
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]