compacting _Jv_Utf8Const

Fri May 7 09:24:00 GMT 2004

Per Bothner <per@bothner.com> writes:
> So the savings would be 3.5 bytes per name. Is that enough to be
> worth while?

I'm more concerned about space wasteage that won't be removed by gzip
compression. I'm pretty sure gzip will handle stuff like extra
zero-bytes (the zero byte gets a very short huffman code).
Basically my approach with NanoGoat was to look for "complex data"
that wasn't needed in the binary, since this is the stuff that won't
"compress away". Reflection data and exception handling data account
for almost all of this.
 - a