"Martin v. Löwis"
martin at v.loewis.de
Sun Sep 24 06:49:34 CEST 2006
Milan Krcmar schrieb:
> Can you give me any information to start with? I would prefer stripping
> current version of Python rather than returning to a years-old (but
> smaller) version and remembering what of the new syntax/functionality to
I would start with dropping support for dynamic loading of extension
modules, and link all necessary modules statically.
Then, do what Michael Hudson says: find out what is taking up space.
size */*.o|sort -n
should give a good starting point; on my system, I get
29356 1416 156 30928 78d0 Objects/classobject.o
30663 0 0 30663 77c7 Objects/unicodectype.o
33530 480 536 34546 86f2 Python/Python-ast.o
33624 1792 616 36032 8cc0 Objects/longobject.o
36603 16 288 36907 902b Python/ceval.o
36710 2532 0 39242 994a Modules/_sre.o
39169 9473 1032 49674 c20a Objects/stringobject.o
52965 0 36 53001 cf09 Python/compile.o
66197 4592 436 71225 11639 Objects/typeobject.o
74111 9779 1160 85050 14c3a Objects/unicodeobject.o
Michael already mentioned you can drop unicodeobject if you want
to. compile.o would also offer savings, but stripping it might
not be easy. Dropping _sre is quite easy. If you manage to
drop compile.o, then dropping Python-ast.o (along with the
rest of the compiler) should also be possible.
unicodectype will go away if the Unicode type goes, but can
probably be removed separately. And so on.
When you come to a solution that satisfies your needs,
don't forget to document it somewhere.
More information about the Python-Dev