executable size of eos excessive compare to other archives

Sep 17, 2012 at 11:49 PM

why is there such a huge disparity between using boost text archive and eos portable

binary archive, nearly double the size, on linux

Sep 19, 2012 at 11:15 AM
Edited Sep 19, 2012 at 11:16 AM

To be honest, executable size has never been a concern to me. I build upon Roberts basic binary archives which have essentially the full boost::binary_[io]archive functionality in them already and add a portability layer on top of that. So to me it's no big surprise that our archives are at least as large. And there is a lot of template instatiation going on behind the scenes since we use generic programming a lot on the portability layer. Most likely the aspect of executable size still could be optimized (e.g. by separating stuff into different headers plus implementation files). How important is that for your usecase?