[Mono-dev] Mono 1.0 and 2.0 profiles

[Miguel de Icaza]

Hello,

    Sorry, I forgot to CC m-d-l in the last post.


> Hello Mantas,
> 
>     Thanks for your feedback:
> 
> > So adding of reference to .NET Socket API adds two new dependencies  
> > System.dll and System.Xml.dll and ends up with 2.1 MB of additional  
> > ARM code.
> 
> Would you mind checking why Sockets is pulling System.Xml for you?
> 
> Another thing that would be useful is to find out why System ends up  
> so large even with the linker being used if you are only using sockets.
> 
> For example, let us consider the Silverlight profile: it requires us  
> to ifdef some steps during the build time that to assist the linker.    
> The linker works, but it can not do magic without some help here and  
> there.
> 
> That is why I am wondering if we can do something along the lines of  
> adding a build profile that would work for embedded case scenarios,  
> but still based on a generics-based profile instead of the non- 
> generics build.
> 
> I am interested in getting to the bottom of why the generics-based  
> profile can not be used in embedded systems and address that issue,  
> because that is where most of the pain comes from (other pieces are  
> just low-tech variations of what the Mono linker can do).
> 
> If we can figure out a way to have you guys up and running with a  
> generics-based mscorlib that consumes as much memory/space as the 1.0  
> profile I think we will all win.
> 
> Question: what are the problems that you guys are facing with AOT and  
> generics?
> 
> > Miguel, I saw your comment that people who are using profile 1.0   
> > should stick with mono-2-4 then I would like to ask what about AOT  
> > on other platforms support? Let's say mono adds PPC AOT support to  
> > mono-2-6 will it be backported to mono-2-4? If not then I see the  
> > problem how mono based applications could be developed for small  
> > devices that currently are not supported by mono-2-4, but maybe will  
> > be supported in the next versions.
> 
> Possibly, but I have a hard time coming up with a PowerPC device that  
> can be considered "a small device".
> 
> The only case I am aware of where the AOT code for PPC makes sense are  
> gaming consoles, and those are capable systems.
> 
> Miguel.
>