Default Uri constructors brings a lot of dependencies

[marek-safar]

Using a simple program like

using System;

class Program
{
    static void Main(string[] args)
    {
        Console.WriteLine(new Uri ("www.microsoft.com"));
    }
}

shows that the default Uri constructor brings a lot for size-optimized setup. The size increase for adding Uri constructor is about 80 KB which seems to be a lot for a simple "default" constructor call.

[dotnet-issue-labeler]

I couldn't figure out the best area label to add to this issue. If you have write-permissions please help me learn by adding exactly one area label.

[ghost]

Tagging subscribers to 'size-reduction': @eerhardt, @SamMonoRT, @marek-safar, @tannergooding, @CoffeeFlux
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

Issue Details

---

Using a simple program like

using System;

class Program
{
    static void Main(string[] args)
    {
        Console.WriteLine(new Uri ("www.microsoft.com"));
    }
}

shows that the default Uri constructor brings a lot for size-optimized setup. The size increase for adding Uri constructor is about 80 KB which seems to be a lot for a simple "default" constructor call.

Author:	marek-safar
Assignees:	-
Labels:	size-reduction, untriaged
Milestone:	-

[ghost]

Tagging subscribers to this area: @dotnet/ncl
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

Issue Details

---

Using a simple program like

using System;

class Program
{
    static void Main(string[] args)
    {
        Console.WriteLine(new Uri ("www.microsoft.com"));
    }
}

shows that the default Uri constructor brings a lot for size-optimized setup. The size increase for adding Uri constructor is about 80 KB which seems to be a lot for a simple "default" constructor call.

Author:	marek-safar
Assignees:	-
Labels:	area-System.Net, size-reduction, untriaged
Milestone:	-

[CoffeeFlux]

cc: @eerhardt

[scalablecory]

It's not clear that this is a problem -- do we have a graph of which dependencies it brings in that we think would be reasonable to remove (i.e. not typically used alongside Uri)? Or, is this a work item for someone to investigate?

[CoffeeFlux]

The latter - we're trying to identify promising candidates for further reduction, and 80K is a lot to bring in for just that constructor.

Ideally someone more familiar with the area would take a look at the dependency graph, and I would assume there is a somewhat linker-unfriendly design that we might want to re-evaluate for size-optimized scenarios. See #44534 for a similar example

[geoffkizer]

Can you provide the dependency graph?

[CoffeeFlux]

I normally use ILSpy to look at this, though I think there's a linker tool for it as well? cc: @marek-safar

See #44534 (comment) on how to generate the assemblies

[karelz]

Triage: Per discussion with @marek-safar does not seem critical for 6.0, moving to Future from Networking point of view.
We will be happy to help / provide advice if there is clear data available that is easy to digest. Let us know if that does not meet the expectations.