From: quacci AT vera DOT com (jon) Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: Allegro question regarding .exe size Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 01:24:02 GMT Organization: Yale University Lines: 89 Message-ID: <338a284f.7880730@news.cis.yale.edu> References: <3388b9c1 DOT 30672726 AT news DOT cis DOT yale DOT edu> <5mai81$pne AT news DOT ox DOT ac DOT uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: slip-ppp-node-03.cs.yale.edu To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Precedence: bulk On 25 May 1997 23:33:21 GMT, mert0407 AT sable DOT ox DOT ac DOT uk (George Foot) wrote: >jon wrote: >I don't recall whether the Allegro library builds itself with the -s >option; if not, this would reduce the size of its code. I.e., perhaps jlib does build with -s, one would infer. Definitely a interesting thought. I already link everything -s in my own stuff, but I hadn't thought of how the libs "build themselves." Great thought. I just ran strip on an executable, in case that would tell me something, but it didn't- in fact, the exe got 3k bigger (what!?). Oh ... just a shot in the dark. Maybe Shawn will be able to answer this on sight. >: Anyway, this isn't really discouraging, but I would like to read some >: comments on this observation in this thread. Because I can't really >: decide which lib to focus on- they are both great, and while Allegro >: offers more "stuff", jlib offers more portability. Both appear to be >: equally robust and speedy, and both have excellent documentation. > >When I moved to DJGPP, I initially did my own graphics, in a limited sort >of way, by using the dos memory functions to put a 320x200 buffer onto the >screen memory. Then I started playing with GRX in 640x480, which wasn't >too bad. I looked at JLib and Allegro next, and chose Allegro because it >seemed more accessible (and more highly recommended, even a year ago ;) ). Allegro definitely has the userbase, presently, which is part of the reason I am interested in it, because such a thing is likely to get debugged and pushed in development harder (getting more features) than something less used. And allegro has a very well organized approach to doing what it does, having generalized approaches with the BITMAP structure and not sticking the lib during build in to one possible video mode, etc. I appreciate the thought Shawn put in to the overall approach. But I'd definitely like to see jlib live too, the portability is a plus... and it is a solid, basic lib. While I know this is definitely*not* a general comparison of the libs, I must admit that in the specific implementation I am using it for now, for some reason my jlib version is a bit faster (roughly 14 FPS instead of 13FPS on a 486)... and we already know by this thread that it is smaller. I think the speed is directly attributable to my eccentric use of the BITMAP/buffer data (detailed in another thread), but I need to use some similar variation of it, because it is faster than the equivelent _put/_get pixel funcs in either lib for the particular sort of line drawing I am doing. I could test the speed-deficit theory easily enough by any number of ways- including copying the data to new simple 1D arrays that I access directly (sloppy, but definitely direct)... perhaps I'll try that this week. I'm sure enough about that that all I am really wondering about is why the allegro version is over twice the size. If I had an adequate answer to that (and your proposal is a good one), I'm probably going to pursue an allegro line in parallel with my jlib base for awile. >: Actually, I hope it is always hard to choose our libs. We're all very, >: _very_ lucky for the fantastic efforts of Shawn Hargreaves with >: Allegro and Jon Griffiths with Jlib. Thanks, guys! (round of >: applause!) > >Standing ovation, more like :) Honestly, DJGPP and the associated peripheral libs represents an amazing direction. Fact is, *it is all here*. I mean, I'd be willing to stick the DJGPP direction even if it weren't at least par with the best DOS compilers out there, because I believe it is an extremely important direction (as anything GNU is) that by design, through group effort, would with time eventually be the best, and of course, non-proprietary. But the fact is, *there is no pain*, we're already there (minus a few windows and pentium details). I'm not sure why anybody uses anything different; this is a no-gamble, long-term direction. And to keep the remainder of this post brief, I'll just add thanks for the excellent assistance you've given me regarding my mouse question. No, jlib doesn't directly do this strange mouse thing I want either, AFAIK. I will experiment with the code and advice you've offered. Many thanks.