Code::Blocks Forums

Developer forums (C::B DEVELOPMENT STRICTLY!) => Plugins development => Topic started by: wtfisgoingoff on December 25, 2023, 03:52:22 pm

Title: [solved] What are the possible reasons those plugins are much larger?
Post by: wtfisgoingoff on December 25, 2023, 03:52:22 pm
I built C::B by this guide https://wiki.codeblocks.org/index.php/Installing_Code::Blocks_from_source_on_Windows (https://wiki.codeblocks.org/index.php/Installing_Code::Blocks_from_source_on_Windows)
Everything seems fine, C::B runs fine. But when I tried to send it to others, the compressed package is much larger than official nightly build. Then I found those plugins built by myself are much larger.(attached)So, what I might have wrongly done ?
Title: Re: What are the possible reasons those plugins built by myself are much larger?
Post by: stahta01 on December 25, 2023, 04:34:27 pm
The most likely is you are not striping the binaries right.

From an command prompt (cmd.exe) window run.
Code
where strip

If strip is not in the PATH you will get this.
Code
INFO: Could not find files for the given pattern(s).

Tim S.
Title: Re: What are the possible reasons those plugins built by myself are much larger?
Post by: wtfisgoingoff on December 25, 2023, 05:30:54 pm
Thx a lot, problem solved. :)
I read a guide that says MSYS2/xxxx/bin should  not be in PATH. And I followed it.  So when I ran that update32_64.bat, strip was not in PATH.(BTW if I run update.bat in CLI  rather than double clicking it, I should have found this problem.)
Title: Re: What are the possible reasons those plugins built by myself are much larger?
Post by: stahta01 on December 25, 2023, 06:10:09 pm
Having sh.exe in the path while building wxWidgets will cause the build to fail.

Tim S.

Quote from: wtfisgoingoff on December 25, 2023, 05:30:54 pm
Thx a lot, problem solved. :)
I read a guide that says MSYS2/xxxx/bin should  not be in PATH. And I followed it.  So when I ran that update32_64.bat, strip was not in PATH.(BTW if I run update.bat in CLI  rather than double clicking it, I should have found this problem.)
Title: Re: What are the possible reasons those plugins built by myself are much larger?
Post by: PB on December 25, 2023, 07:13:36 pm
Quote from: stahta01 on December 25, 2023, 06:10:09 pm
Having sh.exe in the path while building wxWidgets will cause the build to fail.
This should be avoidable with a SHELL build parameter, e.g.
Quote
mingw32-make -f makefile.gcc SHARED=1 BUILD=release SHELL=cmd.exe
Title: Re: What are the possible reasons those plugins built by myself are much larger?
Post by: stahta01 on December 25, 2023, 07:22:09 pm
Quote from: PB on December 25, 2023, 07:13:36 pm
Quote from: stahta01 on December 25, 2023, 06:10:09 pm
Having sh.exe in the path while building wxWidgets will cause the build to fail.
This should be avoidable with a SHELL build parameter, e.g.
Quote
mingw32-make -f makefile.gcc SHARED=1 BUILD=release SHELL=cmd.exe

CB requires monolithic build normally; and that fails most of the time when that option is used; I am guessing the command line is too long.
It has been over 3 years since I last tried it.

Tim S.
Title: Re: What are the possible reasons those plugins built by myself are much larger?
Post by: PB on December 25, 2023, 09:19:09 pm
Quote from: stahta01 on December 25, 2023, 07:22:09 pm
[CB requires monolithic build normally; and that fails most of the time when that option is used; I am guessing the command line is too long.

Just for the record, Windows allows a command line length of about 8 kB.

This should be more than enough to build wxWidgets in any reasonable configuration, monolithic or not; I mean when calling the mingw make.

AFAIK, wxWidgets internally uses response files to work around the command line length limit when compiling its files.