I use Yocto (Krogoth) to build my imx6 images and toolchains, however it's a bit heavy and slow for working on kernel drivers. As such my dev cycle is to build the kernel on its own, just using the output of a "do_patch" run in yocto as the source tree base and sourcing the toolchain environment.
This is normally not a problem, as mostly I'm focussed at that end of the s/w stack. However, I now need to be able to run a Qt application (running under eglfs) on top of my continually updated kernel, for a bug hunt. To do this, I need the imx6 graphics driver working, so I get the galcore source from git://github.com/Freescale/kernel-module-imx-gpu-viv.git export my kernel build directory, make it and deploy it. That module loads perfectly. However running the working application that has already been built with Yocto causes a crash, somewhere in libQt5EglDeviceIntegration.so.5. All the libs etc. are part of the original working image, the same place I took my kernel source from.
What do I need to do to make this work? Is there some part of Qt tied to the graphics driver that's going to force me to rebuild the entire library? What's the relationship between galcore.ko and Qt? Is there now a weird dependency between my application and the linux kernel?!
EDIT: PEBCAK. I'm an idiot. I didn't check out from the right SHA1 (that listed in the recipe) for the galcore driver. Still, the answer below is instructive, so I'd like to keep this question.
What do I need to do to make this work?
No idea. Maybe your self-built galcore.ko is incompatible with the binary blob OpenGL libraries from Freescale somehow? Does the original galcore.ko work correctly? How does the backtrace look?
Is there some part of Qt tied to the graphics driver that's going to force me to rebuild the entire library?
No need to rebuild Qt. While Qt is linked against the OpenGL library, the OpenGL ABI/API is stable and therefore a Qt rebuild isn't needed. Besides that, you aren't changing the OpenGL libraries.
What's the relationship between galcore.ko and Qt?
Qt uses OpenGL for rendering when using QtQuick. The OpenGL library (libGL.so and a few variants like libGLes2.so) is provided by Freescale as a binary blob. The OpenGL library makes syscalls that end up in the galcore.ko kernel module.
libQt5EglDeviceIntegration.so.5 is the part in Qt that does the first OpenGL calls to initialize OpenGL.
Is there now a weird dependency between my application and the linux kernel?!
Well, yes, indirectly via Qt -> libGL.so -> kernel [galcore.ko]
I have built a xamarin forms app and android size 17mb using proguard, full linking.
However UWP size is 76 mb. I am already using configuration as in the screenshot below.
I am support x86, x64 and arm architectures on both platforms. in android i create separate packages per abi. thats why 17mb is each abi size. but I couldnt find a similar option in UWP. it is size of bundle.
is there a way to provide 3 installers? Beside that why is the size too large and how can i optimize it further?
PS; on native side, i dont have much code. 95 of the code is in shared project even images are embedded in shared project. plus, android has more images.
EDIT: I tried the option "include full PDB files" by unchecking but it didnt help me at all. it only reduced 2 mb size.
I have been using Qt for a while on Linux and Windows. However, yesterday I picked up a new MacBook Pro so naturally I've been playing around to see if I could build my Qt apps on Mac.
I got pretty much everything working, however there is one problem : the file size of the resulting app bundle.
I am building my application like this:
qmake -spec macx-g++
make
macdeployqt my.app -no-plugins -dmg
The bundle and everything seem to work fine, but, the generated .app is 31.1 MB large and the .dmg is 13.6 MB!
Is this normal? Can I reduce this horrible size (on Windows, my installer for the same app with all the libraries is ~4 MB)?
If you are using the pre-built Qt libraries then the chances are that they are universal binaries with multiple architectures. For example, do $ file my.app/Resources/Frameworks/QtCore.framework/Versions/4/QtCore and you will see multiple architectures.
You can build your own Qt libraries with only the architectures that you want to support. You may wish to not support PPC because that is ancient; or if you are using a current Qt then you can make the decision of 32 bit vs 64 bit, but that's another question.
The problem is the size of the Qt dynamic libraries, as they must be part of your bundle.
These sizes can usually be reduced.
See the solution of How do I make apps smaller with qmake and macdeployqt on how to do this.
An excellent workaround would be a static build of Qt and linking your application against the static build. This usually is a very good idea as two applications installing Qt dynamically usually crash on Mac OS.
Your application will have with static build (from my exp.) approx. 10-20MB of size. Combined with the steps above, some more reduction might be possible.
Whats the best way to deploy a QT app? I've read the documentation hosted at trolltech but is it better to link with a static library or the dynamic libraries and have the user install the framework? I don't really want anyone using my app to have to download a 160mb framework just to run a simple gui frontend.
On OS X it's a good way to do a dynamic build and post-process the resulting ".app" with the macdeployqt tool which comes with Qt starting with 4.5.
This will copy the Qt frameworks used by your application into the application bundle, which results in a larger package than building a static version of your application.
Here is what you can do to make sure you get the smallest file size possibly in a dynamic build:
First off, make sure you only include the stuff you need (in the project.pro file's QT += core gui network xml lines).
Open the application bundle and remove any unneeded "Qt Plugins" from the bundle. macdeployqt automatically compies all the Qt plugins in there, which can be kind of bulky.
Make sure you are building your application in release mode. Otherwise your application might be linked against the debug libraries of the Qt4 framework, and they are really big (for instance, well over 90 MB for the debug library vs. 16 MB of a release variant without debugging symbols). This might be what happened in your case.
If you have a large application binary, you can use UPX to compress your executable file by 40-50%.
Other than that, you should use compressed disk images to deploy your application.
One of my projects uses QtGui, QtNetwork, QtCore and QtXml and the resulting bundle is about 16 MB in size.
Hope that helps.
Unfortunately you will have to include the Qt libraries you need into your own bundle, as you cannot expect your users to have Qt installed on Mac (whereas on Linux packaging systems allow you to require at least a given version of Qt.
There is a nice tool to help you with that, which is called macdeployqt. You just need to invoke it on your bundle application and it will pack the required libraries, changing the linkage of your binary to refer to them. Without it, making bundles for Mac is a real pain (it still is, but considerably less though).
http://doc.trolltech.com/4.6/deployment-mac.html#the-mac-deployment-tool
Afterwards, you can make a .dmg image as you would do with any other app. There is an option in macdeployqt that builds a basic one.
On Linux, it's better to rely on the OS's copy of Qt, as it's almost certainly installed - for OS X, almost all apps use a statically compiled library.
I run Flex Builder 3 on a mac and as my project grows - the compile time gets longer and longer and longer. I am using some SWC's and there is a fair amount of code but it shouldn't take minutes to build and crash daily should it?
First of all, comments on some of the response:
There is no need to explicitly specify -incremental in Flex Builder because it uses incremental compilation by default.
-keep-generated-actionscript is a performance killer because it instructs the compiler to write out AS3 codes generated for MXML components in the middle of the compilation. File I/O in the middle of a compilation means unnecessary pauses and low CPU utilizations.
-optimize slows down linking because it instructs the linker to produce smaller SWFs. Note that -optimize=true|false doesn't have any effect on building SWCs because SWCs are libraries and have to be unoptimized.
I rarely mess with JVM settings because JVM knows its jobs well and tunes itself quite well at runtime. Most people make matter worse by setting various GC tuning parameters. That said, there are 3 settings most people understand and set correctly for their usage:
-Xmx (max heap size)
-server or -client (HotSpot Server or Client VM)
-XX:+UseSerialGC or -XX:+UseParallelGC (or other non-serial GC)
-server consistently outperforms -client by about 30% when running the Flex compiler.
-XX:+UseParallelGC turns on the parallel garbage collector. ideal for multicore computer and when the computer still has CPU cycles to spare.
You may also want to check out HellFire Compiler Daemon (http://bytecode-workshop.com/). It uses multiple processor cores to compile multiple Flex applications at the same time. You can also run the compiler on a second machine via sockets (assuming that your second machine has faster CPUs and more memory).
In my opinion, use more modules than libraries and use HFCD.
Hope this helps.
-Clement
There's no need to use mxmlc on the command line just to be able to add compiler flags. Right click your project in the Flex Navigator, select Properties and then Flex Compiler in the dialog that appears. There you can add any extra compiler flags.
Not sure that there's very much to do though, more code means more compile time, that's just the way it is. If you're not doing a release build (or whatever it's called in Flex Builder) it's unlikely that your compiler settings include optimize to begin with. Better choices to try would be -incremental (which only recompiles the parts that have changed) and -keep-generated-actionscript (which stops the compiler from deleting the ActionScript files it has generated from your application's MXML files).
I very much prefer using mxmlc on the command line (by way of Ant) compared to Flex Builder. Although I don't think that the latter compiles any slower, it feels more sluggish in every way. Using Ant also makes it possible to do more than just compilation when building, and conditional compilation (only compile a SWF or SWC if the source code has actually changed). Check out a blog post of mine for more info on that.
What you could try is the Flex Compiler Shell, another command line tool that can speed things up. Basically it tries to keep as much as possible in memory between builds, so no need to wait for things like the JVM starting up (the Flex compiler is a Java application). On the other hand this is sort of what Flex Builder does anyway.
In addition to the suggestions already mentioned, close any projects that you have open that you are not using.
Rich click on the Project in the Navigator view and select "Close Unrelated Projects".
Depending on how many projects you have open, this can lead to a significant improvements in compile time, as well as all around performance.
mike chambers
mesh#adobe.com
Slow compile time is most often caused by having large numbers of embedded resources ([Embed] or #Embed).
Option 2 on this article might help you: [http://www.rogue-development.com/blog2/2007/11/slow-flex-builder-compile-and-refresh-solution-modules/]
I created RAM Disk with workspace and it gives up to 10% of better compilation time. Not much, but something.
You want at least 4 gigs on your computer if possible, and make sure to override the default memory settings that eclipse/flexbuilder gives to the application.
If you're not sure how to do this, you can find the flexbuilder app in /Applications, right click and choose "Show Package Contents". Then go into the contents file and edit the eclipse.ini file. Edit that file have memory settings of at least:
-vmargs -Xms768m -Xmx768m -XX:PermSize=128m -XX:MaxPermSize=128m
It's also worthwhile to go into the eclipse/flexbuilder preferences and to check the "Show heap status" box under Windows->Preferences->General (This is in eclipse with the FB plugin, I'm assuming it's also there for standalone FB).
This shows the current memory in the lower right of the window and has a little trash icon so you can force garbage collection.
I'd also suggest turning off automatic building of the project when your files change (you can force a build with cmd-B).
We had a huge project with quite a few modules files and performance in FlexBuilder 3 was decent with these steps.
Go to Project->Properties->Flex Applications. All of the applications listed are compiled each time (even though you have a default set). If you remove everything but the default (don't worry, it won't delete the actual files), it only compiles the default app. This resulted in a significant speed up for me. If you change your default app, it ADDs it to the Flex Applications list - adding to your compile time. You will need to maintain this list to get the quickest compile.
I always disable "automatic compile" for Flex. It compiles too much, takes too long, and so interrupts my work.
If you have many different project files and all of those needs to be recompiled, but you also have other projects open and don't want to close them always you're doing a build, you can also use Eclipse Working Sets.
Unfortunately, the default Flex Navigator does not support working sets. But you can open the Package Explorer with Window / Show View / .... Click on the little white downward arrow to the topright and select Top Level Elements: Working Sets. You can then add Working Sets (aka groups of projects). Each project needs to be in at least one working set ("Other Projects" being the default), but can be in several.
Now with Project / Build Working Set / ... you can instruct Eclipse to build all the projects in this working set, but none of the others. This is especially useful if you suspect your project references to be sometimes broken - otherwise building the 'topmost' project should trigger subsequent builds automatically.
As Clement said, use the HellFire Compiler Daemon. If you have multiple modules and more CPU cores on your machine it can compile them in parallel. Another option is to use IntelliJ (the commercial version) which offers the same feature.
The SDK 4.x.x introduced silly bug (see Adobe bugsystem, issue FB-27440), which causes projects with SVN or CVS meta data compile much slower than with SDK 3.x.x. On how it can be fixed, see here.
You may want to explore the command-line compiler found in the Flex SDK, mxmlc. As I recall, Flex Builder 3 seems to hide all the compiler details, but perhaps there are arguments you can append that will help you speed up the compilation.
For example, you may want to set optimize=false which will skip the step of optimizing the bytecode (perhaps reducing compilation time)? This of course comes at the price of performance and file size of the actual application.
More documentation on mxmlc can be found at: http://livedocs.adobe.com/flex/3/html/compilers_13.html.
Good luck!
I don't use Flex Builder, but I use the Flex SDK compiler everyday and I was wasting tons of time waiting for the MXMLC compiler to do its job until I found Flex Compiler SHell:
http://blog.zarate.tv/2008/12/07/theres-something-called-flex-compiler-shell/
Although in theory Flex Builder already uses this optimizations, might be worth checking.
You can use WORKING SETS to compile just a set of your components that are part of the application that you are changing and not the whole project
http://livedocs.adobe.com/flex/3/html/help.html?content=build_6.html
Usually the first build takes the longest, and then it's pretty quick after that. That's using Vista x64 w/ core 2 duo.
Otherwise, I am nearly certain a Intel Core i7 Extreme Edition 965 3.2GHz upgrade processor would speed your Flex building up nicely .. :) :) :)