mikshaw
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3db3d/3db3d59337ccc8bc3ec15645b7ab368bce77b85a" alt="Offline"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3ce47/3ce47e985ab15a24d340f7ee67fb1117182cdde6" alt=""
Group: Members
Posts: 4856
Joined: July 2004 |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/cd3a8/cd3a84c67c9ea531b591a3a8b33552269a04250f" alt="" |
Posted: Sep. 23 2007,20:51 |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d6c44/d6c44952b272c7945ab6f79c02e4aece27e637ca" alt="QUOTE" |
I didn't see anything os-specific that could easily be removed (by me), but I did make a test with a non-Xft FLTK installation (1.1.7 stable doesn't work, by the way), disabling lfs, sqlite, LZO, and iostring (luasocket is a little more tricky, since it's used in multiple files). The result came out to about 305k, though I haven't compared its performance.
It got me thinking that perhaps some of the slowdown is in the Xft version of murgaLua? Just a guess, though. I have no idea if you were comparing 0.5.5 Xft with 0.4 non-Xft. I can see a slight performance difference between Xft and non-Xft within the same release
-------------- http://www.tldp.org/LDP/intro-linux/html/index.html
|