Support Board
Date/Time: Mon, 15 Jun 2026 03:24:36 +0000
Huge difference in compiled dll's between Remote Standard and older VS Community Compiler
View Count: 211
| [2026-04-30 14:10:13] |
| User92573 - Posts: 588 |
|
Dear John / Support I'm currently re-compiling some studies that I've used for a few years without issue (naming changes). Previously I compiled them using Visual Studio's Compiler but I've not installed the Community Edition on this PC so I thought I'd simply use the remote compiler (standard). However, for some reason the same compiled dll's are typically 8 to 10 times larger. Does this sound correct, or is there an issue? Many thanks. |
| [2026-04-30 15:14:47] |
| seandunaway - Posts: 393 |
|
yeah, interesting % du -h *.dll
124K local_build_arm64.dll 132K local_build_x64.dll 220K remote_build_arm64.dll 896K remote_build_x64.dll the remote arm64 is about double the size and remote x64 is about 7x the size interestingly the x64 remote build is using the console subsystem instead of gui, that could pull in some unnecessary things (missing flag -mwindows) % file *.dll
local_build_arm64.dll: PE32+ executable (DLL) (GUI) Aarch64, for MS Windows local_build_x64.dll: PE32+ executable (DLL) (GUI) x86-64, for MS Windows remote_build_arm64.dll: PE32+ executable (DLL) (GUI) Aarch64, for MS Windows remote_build_x64.dll: PE32+ executable (DLL) (console) x86-64 (stripped to external PDB), for MS Windows we can see it's not debug symbols or anything but actual additional text section or code % llvm-size -A *.dll
local_build_x64.dll : section size addr .text 78822 6442455040 .rdata 43156 6442536960 .data 2560 6442582016 .pdata 4812 6442590208 .gfids 128 6442598400 _RDATA 500 6442602496 .reloc 1596 6442606592 Total 131574 remote_build_x64.dll : section size addr .text 716824 1711280128 .data 12064 1712001024 .rdata 65088 1712013312 .pdata 43920 1712078848 .xdata 61688 1712123904 .bss 0 1712189440 .edata 129 1712197632 .idata 3732 1712201728 .CRT 88 1712205824 .tls 16 1712209920 .reloc 5744 1712214016 Total 909293 a little deeper we can see x64 version uses a different linker % llvm-readobj -h -l -S *.dll | grep -E "(File:|Linker)"
File: local_build_arm64.dll MajorLinkerVersion: 14 MinorLinkerVersion: 0 File: local_build_x64.dll MajorLinkerVersion: 14 MinorLinkerVersion: 0 File: remote_build_arm64.dll MajorLinkerVersion: 14 MinorLinkerVersion: 0 File: remote_build_x64.dll MajorLinkerVersion: 2 MinorLinkerVersion: 34 my guess is arm64 builds use llvm's lld and x64 is using gcc's linker (missing flag -fuse-ld=lld) all of which probably suggests the x64 remote builds are using the mingw toolchain instead of the native msvc (but arm64 doesn't), which if i remember correctly pulls in a lot of redundant stuffs some of it might be able to be eliminated with something like -fuse-ld=lld
-fno-exceptions -fno-rtti -fno-unwind-tables -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables -fno-stack-protector -ffunction-sections -fdata-sections -Wl,--gc-sections or, preferably, just use the same compiler and msvc toolchain for the x64 builds but the good news is that while this is all interesting for nerds, the true practical reality is the code will run with identical performance and make zero difference at all, minus less than a lousy megabyte of memory Date Time Of Last Edit: 2026-04-30 15:26:34
|
| [2026-05-01 19:30:52] |
| Sierra_Chart Engineering - Posts: 24024 |
|
However, for some reason the same compiled dll's are typically 8 to 10 times larger. Yes this is expected and we are well aware of this. There is static linking of library files when using remote build. Also, even when using the local build functionality. We would assume, there is just simply additional unused code but it has no performance impact. Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. Try to keep your questions brief and to the point. Be aware of support policy: https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, use the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing Date Time Of Last Edit: 2026-05-01 19:31:22
|
| [2026-05-04 12:25:43] |
| User92573 - Posts: 588 |
|
Many thanks to you both for explaining the reasons behind the increase in DLL size. Very grateful. Thank you. |
To post a message in this thread, you need to log in with your Sierra Chart account: