/clr and /GM option

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maileen
  • Start date Start date
M

Maileen

Hi,

I use the /clr option due to my needs for automation of Excel.
Unfortunately this option excludes /Gm which normal should reduce the
build...
instead of having a build of 40 000 kbits, now I have more than 1.5
Mbits application...

Is there a another way to reduce the EXE file directly from VC.NET options ?

Thanks,
Maileen
 
Maileen,
I use the /clr option due to my needs for automation of Excel.
Unfortunately this option excludes /Gm which normal should reduce the
build...
instead of having a build of 40 000 kbits, now I have more than 1.5
Mbits application...

Is there a another way to reduce the EXE file directly from VC.NET options
Click to expand...
?

Are you saying that the resulting executable is larger? humm... well, it
might be a side effect of using /clr and nothing to do with not using /Gm
(which is used to improve compilation time, not resulting executable size).

You could possibly split your code into more than one module (say a couple
of dlls instead of just one) to minimize this effect, though its hard to say
with so little information....

(BTW, I'm assuming you meant 40 KB to 1.5 MB or something like that,
although I fail to see why it would be such a big difference.... the numbers
you specified don't really make much sense, so it's hard to say what you
really meant ;))
 
40 000 kbits is 40MB, but numbers aside, compiling with /CLR is going to
require the .NET framework to be installed on client machines anyway, so the
executable size may not be the biggest of your problems.

How were you compiling before, if you can't use Excel automation without
/clr? Maybe the extra stuff you've put in (or, as Tomas says, simply the
fact that you're now compiling with /clr) makes a difference.

Steve
 
Actually, there are 8 bits in a byte, so 40,000 kbits != 40 MB. 40MB is
actually 40,960 kbytes, or 327,680 kbits (but kbits are seldom used unless
you're referring to bandwidth.

I know this has nothing to do with your topic... just thought I'd clarify.
It may come in useful :)
 
The unProfessional said:
Actually, there are 8 bits in a byte, so 40,000 kbits != 40 MB. 40MB is
actually 40,960 kbytes, or 327,680 kbits (but kbits are seldom used unless
you're referring to bandwidth.

I know this has nothing to do with your topic... just thought I'd clarify.
It may come in useful :)
Click to expand...

I don't think SI and storage medium makers would agree with you! :P
 
Back
Top