Author Topic: Optimizing The Qpe Start-up Time  (Read 6190 times)

peter chen

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Optimizing The Qpe Start-up Time
« on: September 03, 2005, 02:09:57 am »
Hi,everyone
    Recently,i have done something about Optimizing the qpe start-up time,as the start-up time of qpe is so slow for consumer products.
    i find it needs to cost half of start-up of time to load plugin(
inputmethod,applet.....).i want to find some ways to load plugin after
UI visible.but i failed.
    anyone who did it before,can u give u some tips?
    thx in advance

timematcher

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Optimizing The Qpe Start-up Time
« Reply #1 on: August 08, 2008, 08:07:19 am »
Quote from: peter chen
Hi,everyone
    Recently,i have done something about Optimizing the qpe start-up time,as the start-up time of qpe is so slow for consumer products.
    i find it needs to cost half of start-up of time to load plugin(
inputmethod,applet.....).i want to find some ways to load plugin after
UI visible.but i failed.
    anyone who did it before,can u give u some tips?
    thx in advance

Actuallly i havent tried to optimize it the way you are doing but there is another way. Try reducing the size of the executables in the $QPEDIR/bin folder. You can use the "strip" command of the GCC Compiler.

If you have compiled for the ARM architecture then you must use the arm-linux-strip command. Dont use the ordinary strip or it will screw your binaries.

I had 3.0 MB of qpe executable  and i striped it down to make it 2.5 MB. Significant change in performance was observed.  

As a side note: I think it will be very difficult to optimize the code in the way you suggested. That's because the various components of the main QPE executable is linked with a lot others in a shared manner. You may say: "Shared Dependencies of Components and services".  

Anyways if you are succesful in increasing loadind/startup performance of your QPE binary then do post your experiences back.  

Thanks
« Last Edit: August 08, 2008, 08:08:52 am by timematcher »