already delphi win32 exe size is ~850 kb , do they have any roadmap of making exe size bit smaller,(i know that the size is because of vcl unicode RTTI and many more ),delphi compiles the whole unit even only a small function in the unit is needed. so is there any facilities to do so,or third party products are there , (i know kol and mck do the same)
I doubt that exe size is much of a concern for the Delphi team, or even for most of the users as well. As you noticed, unicode and new RTTI increase the size, and while you can turn of new RTTI there really is not much else you can do about it.
In general each new Delphi version produced larger exes, I don't see this trend changing.
As for compiling whole units that isn't correct, unless you compile packages the compiler will not include non used methods and declarations.
If exe size is important you don't have much choice. If you don't need unicode and other new features then using D2007 or D7 or even D2 is an option.
You can use exe packers such as UPX.
If you build a set of applications you can reduce total size by using shared packages.
Also check out these:
What Can I Do To Reduce My Executable's Size (Delphi)?
Delphi EXE compressor?
delphi xe disable RTTI
I'm not sure what kol and mck have to do with your question about .EXE size.
The presumption in your question that a unit is always completely included in your .EXE, even if only a small portion of the unit is actually used, is plain wrong.
Delphi has both a code optimizer and a linker optimizer.
The latter will not include code from a unit in your .EXE if that code is not actually somehow used.
Your more general question 'do they have any roadmap of making exe size bit smaller' can be answered by a simple 'No'.
The current roadmap does not include that.
--jeroen
You certainly shouldn't expect exe size for future 64-bit Delphi versions to be smaller than current 32-bit Delphi exe files.
On the contrary: pointers and pointer-sized types will double in size and other data structures may grow in size due to padding (to meet alignment requirements). All of this gets compiled into the executable, the size of which will therefore grow.
The path looks to be exes will become larger, in the future. Application size became far less important since disk sizes, bandwith and memory footprint rarely are a problem in the Windows world. There's always been a tradeoff between exe size and exe optimization (some optimization techniques can make an exe larger), and a 64 bit executable will probably be somewhat larger. Also improvements to the language may require more data to be stored about the code itself (i.e. RTTI informations). There are techniques to keep an exe size small, but they usually require to bypass most of the Delphi OOP and RAD features and libraries. Unless you have very special needs, rarely the exe size is an issue (although I understand that is some parts of the world bandwidth still matters, and maybe disk space too).
Anyway AFAIK it is not true Delphi linker will import a whole unit. Unused calls will be removed, although not everything you would like to be. The dcu will be compiled as a whole, but only needed code will be moved to the compiled executable. Something may depend on your compilation options. Did you activate the optimization option?
I guess the Free Pascal faq on this goes for Delphi too:
http://wiki.freepascal.org/Size_Matters
Related
Very recently I have come back to Delphi after a long pause and written a rather straightforward utility app my client requested to support an older release...
I know these days the size does not matter much, but it struck me as odd that the one-unit application, when compiled, amounted to 1'084'416 b executable. The one and only .pas unit I wrote is some 20.8k large, mostly because of the richness of the gui.
The uses clause is as follows:
uses
Windows, Messages, SysUtils, Variants, Classes, Controls, Forms, strutils,
Dialogs, ADODB, DB, DBGrids, ExtCtrls, DBCtrls, StdCtrls, Grids, Menus,
Buttons;
I wonder if there's any way I could reduce the size of the application to 300-400k or less?
Did you do a debug or release build? (Make it release for smaller size, make sure optimization is on, debug information turned off)
Did you turn off RTII (delphi 2010 and up) if not needed? (Smaller EXE sizes.)
Number of units in your uses clause of your main unit, is not a good way to guess EXE size. Think of it this way: The VCL itself is one large amount of code, the Database Layer another, and the stuff you write is probably a very small percentage of the EXE size.
To understand your executable size, try the JCL Project Analyzer, or read the MAP file that is produced when you turn on the Map option. This will tell you exactly what is inside your executable file.
It would be silly for various reasons, but you could get a smaller executable by using Delphi 7, for example. In the end when I make an application and I want to make it smaller, I look at how much time it would take, and how much effort to rebuild everything (such as with a vcl alternative) and I then say to myself, forget about it.
You can try using KOL (Key Objects Library is a set of objects to develop power (but small) 32 bit Windows GUI applications using Delphi but without VCL). KOL allows to create very compact Windows32 GUI applications (starting from ~11K without compression - if suggested system units replacement used). The most of code is converted to built-in assembler.
Another option is use a exe compressor like UPX.
MapFileStats (DelphiTools.info) is a good (free) tool that allows you to see how much space every unit occupies in your executable. My own tool DelphiUnitSizes is an alternative that in addition to unit sizes also display the size of each function or class.
Delphi 2010 made the default executable about 30% larger, probably because of RTTI included in the RTL/VCL units, so you can use an older version of Delphi for smaller exe-size.
As others have mentioned UPX is a great tool too, the false positives by virusscanners are not that frequent in my experience.
The size of Delphi-executables can be very much trimmed down using custom System-units and UPX-compression. I can generate exe-files that are less that 64kb in size with my Delphi-based game-generator ZGameEditor, even with Delphi Berlin.
How big is your DFM? It is included as a resource in your EXE. Depending on how complex your GUI is, you might find that creating the GUI at runtime in code could reduce the EXE size.
You may also considere to add the following line to the top of the project file:
{$SetPEFlags 1}
Explanation here : http://hallvards.blogspot.fr/2006/09/hack12-create-smaller-exe-files.html
Yes, but then you'd need to supply the other code units as additional files. Just as .net required the assembly, and you have VB runtimes etc., this is just the Delphi runtime - but it's embedded in the exe.
Another option is to compress the executable, there are tools for that around.
You say you're coming back to Delphi. If you still have an old version available, use that - every new version adds extra features and if you don't need them them your exes will be smaller without them.
Make sure you're only including units you actually use.
But whatever you do I very much doubt you'll get down to 300k. If memory serves, even a 'hello world' application in Delphi 2 would be larger than that.
Do you have any resource files or pictures that are linked into the project?
I think the ADODB also includes quite some overhead. If your app really uses a database then a mere 1MB isn't too bad for file size? Don't forget that your app is just this exe - no need for extra dll's etc.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Reduce exe file
What are some tools that, given an EXE file, remove all unused code and make a new EXE file with code really used by the application? I think that something like that should exist. Just for curiosity; but I think that it can be really good as tools for producing a smaller EXE file without unused code.
P.S.: Delphi produces standalone EXE files that contain code of all object used in an application, but not all elements of this object are really used. This makes big files.
I remember the first version of Pascal that include only code really used and did not insert unused code, and EXE files were smaller.
Current Delphi also excludes unused code. You can easily see this in Delphi. If you compile, you get 'blue dots' in the gutter of your code. Functions that are not used don't have blue dots, meaning they are excluded. If you check the Optimization checkbox in project options, code is rewritten to make more use of registers thus eliminating certain variables.
Nevertheless, Delphi executables grow, especiall when using certain units. I think the smallest .exe you can create in Delphi 7 is about 10Kb. In later versions this will probably be a bit larger.
Important causes of file size is
resources. Large or lots of images consume a lot of space. If you use icons on multiple forms, make sure to put them in a central image list (on a shared datasource). Use one of the available PngImageList implementations for smaller image size against better quality.
rtti. The runtime type information causes class definitions to consume extra space. Thise space is partly due to the meta information about the class, but mainly because all extra code. Any methods that may be called using RTTI could be bound in a kind of 'late binding' fashion. Therefor, the compiler cannot know whether the methods can be eliminated, so it needs to include them in the executable.
registered classes. Similar to 2. If a class is registered, it can be fetched and instantiated using its name as a string. Those classes must be included in the project, even if they are never used, just because the compiler cannot know if they are needed.
It's a fact that RTTI is expanded in recent Delphi versions. I think this also causes the RTTI meta information about classes to consume more space. There's only so much you can do about that.
In general, I think the Delphi compiler still does a lot of optimizing. You shouldn't have to worry about exe file size. If you do, you could try a packer like upx. I've got good esperiences with upx. It cuts down the executables to about a fifth or less of their original size, while retaining all functionality.
If you application is huge, check if you don't have a lot of debug info compiled in.
Try a release build and check if it's any smaller.
What i sometimes do is configure the project to compile all .dcu files into a single folder. That way you quickly see all of the useless units that get compiled into your .exe. It often happens that you include a single unit for a single function, but in turn you get a whole tree of dependent units. You'll just have to search your uses clauses and try to get rid of these dependencies somehow.
I think both gexperts and cnpack contain tools to show dependencies, or to scan for unused units in your project. They can be helpful with this.
After you've removed useless dependencies, you can always compress your compiled exe with upx. There are supposed disadvantages to that (barry kelly wrote about it some time ago), but i've got good experiences with it. It sometimes makes the file 4x as small which can be a big deal.
Is the *.dcu files in delphi xe2 for firemonkey application are independent from platforms.
here. for both 32bit and 64 bit and other operating systems.
If so how is the dcu files are designed. is it something similar to the previous(delphi 1-delphi xe) or something like an intermediate language(like java or .net)
is this new dcu going to make the decompilation of dcu files easier.
The main intention of this question is to know some details about the pros and cons about the new dcu files for firemonkey.
Is the *.dcu files in delphi xe2 for firemonkey application are
independent from platforms. here. for both 32bit and 64 bit and other
operating systems.
No they are not; Delphi XE2 generates different .dcu files for different platforms, and .dcu files for each platform are created in separated folders.
To make it somewhat more insightful, some background info:
DCU's are more or less a combination of the following parts
The object code, which is normal statically compiled relocatable object code, just like what C or C++ would generate.
debug code inclusive (a Topview variant if I'm not mistaken)
A precompiled header(interface) in some form.
unspecialized generics in some representation (*)
cross-unit inlinable code (tree representation?)
I don't know if all these 4 are separate sections or that they are interleaved. My guess is that 1+2 are combined (since that allows more generic routines in the linker) and there is a "rest" with 3+4+5 and maybe some other metadata.
Since headers might depend on OS specific types and symbols in system unit and OS specific units, even in theory only the most self contained units could be crossplatform. Probably not worth the effort to bother.
As far as decompilation goes, it is pretty much the same as the general decompilation problem, with a few twists:
not yet finally linked (object) code is slightly easier decompilable
code with attached debug code is slightly easier decompilable.
however the DCU format is version dependent and proprietary.
the entire decompilation process is very compiler and -version dependent.
In short, it is probably not a bit easier than earlier Delphi compilers or even a static lib + header files of a random C++ compiler.
Delphi with 64 bit compilation is now in Beta, but only invited beta-testers will get their hands on this version.
What should be tested by the beta testers?
Embarcadero will probably provide a tester's guide for the beta testers. But, here are some ideas:
Memory allocation, alignment, heap and stack. 32-bit could use up to 4GB (well, 3.5) of address space on a 64-bit version of Windows with the /LARGEADDRESSAWARE switch: Delphi64 should be able to use much more. Try allocating 8, 16, and 32 GB. (Even if you have less RAM, the allocation should work since it's a virtual address space.) Now read and write values into it a certain spots: check your allocation and pointers all work. Have a look at what Process Explorer reports for the app. Inspect your stack: it runs top-down, unlike the heap - what does it looks like, what addresses is it using? What does the 16-byte alignment look like? Is that alignment kept for all internal Pascal functions, or only those that call external code? In the 32-bit VCL, there were some bits of code that weren't safe for addresses larger than 2GB. Have those been fixed? Does anything break when it's allocated in, say, the 53rd GB of your program's address space? (Try allocating a huge amount, and then dynamically creating forms, controls etc - they'll probably be created with high addresses.) Does the memory manager fragment? How fast are memory moves and copies?
Compiler warnings. (This one is important.) Upgrade your programs - compile them without changes, and see what warnings / errors you get; fix any; and then fix bugs that occur even though you weren't warned. What issues did you encounter? Should the compiler have warned you, but didn't? Do you get warnings when truncating a pointer when casting to an integer? What about more complex issues: if you use the Single floating-point type, what happens? Warning, or is it silently represented as a double? What if you pass in a parameter to a method that's a different size - for example, PostMessage and you pass in a 32-bit-sized value to the handle parameter - will the compiler be smart enough to guess that if the size is wrong, your code might be wrong, even though it's often valid to pass a smaller type to a larger parameter? Under what circumstances should it do so? (Another thing: what if you pass a 64-bit pointer to a 32-bit type in a method expecting a pointer to a 64-bit type - the type safety should yell loudly, but does it? A use case for that is reading blocks from a binary file, something that could easily cause problems with the wrong-sized types.) ...etc.
Compiler warnings are probably one of the most useful tools for people who upgrade, so the compiler should produce as many as possible, in as many situations as possible, with as few false positives as possible. Remember Delphi is used by a wide range of programmers - you may know what a warning means or recognize bad code even if the compiler is silent, but anything that will help novices (or good programmers having a bad day) is important.
Custom controls & WinAPI. You probably have a few customs controls or bits of code that make heavy use of Windows APIs instead of the VCL. Are there any Windows API-specific issues?
Language compatibility. Does the old file IO code work - AssignFile, etc? RTTI? If you have an event signature with an Integer type, and an event handler is auto-created by the IDE, is it generated as Integer or a size-specific integer type depending on the platform that's currently set? What if the event is NativeInt, what then? (I've seen bugs in event handler method signature generation before, though only on the C++ side.)
Different types of application. We can assume GUI programs have been tested well. What about console and service applications?
C++Builder compatible file generation. C++Builder won't be 64-bit in XE2, but hopefully will in XE3. Delphi can produce ..hpp and .obj files for Pascal code, though. What happens in for a 64-bit platform? Can you produce those files, even though they're useless? Does the compiler generate C++-specific warnings in 64-bit mode, or does it give up and not let you do it? In 32-bit mode, is there anything you can do for 64-bit compatibility that will generate a warning building the C++ header?
Linker. Can you link .lib and .obj files created with other compilers? (I'd expect .lib yes, .obj no.) Does the linker use COFF or OMF for 64-bit - have they changed? This thread implies an ELF format. Has it changed for 32-bit too? Does this affect the DCU format, will we still get ultra-fast compiling / linking?
COM and 64-bit plugins. Are there any marshalling issues? Can you build a 64-bit plugin for Explorer now?
Calling conventions. Safecall's supposed to be the only 'calling convention' (if safecall counts...) that's still different - does it still work? Function and procedure pointers, and closures (object method pointers): do they work? What do they look like in the debug inspector? Given all calling conventions are now the same, if you mix calling conventions in your method declaration and your calling pointer, what happens? Is there any legacy stuff around that will break or does it transparently work? Does it now give you an (erroneous) warning that the types are incompatible?
Floating point math. The Delphi 64 preview said floating point would be double only. Can Delphi handle long doubles? Are there any compatibility routines for handling the old Real (48 bits, I think??) type? Does the compiler generate SSE or SSE2 code or a mix, and how good is it?
Performance. This is their first go at a 64-bit compiler; it will probably be refined over the next few releases. But are there any obvious performance problems, with:
compiling; linking; IDE insight?
Generated code: are your programs faster or slower? Is FP math faster or slower? Does inline work, and does it generate any unnecessary header/footer bits around inlined methods?
Debugging. This is probably easiest to test through the whole process of testing everything else, but how well does the 64-bit debugger work? Does it have all functionality of the 32-bit one? Do IDE debug visualiser plugins still work? What if you debug a non-Delphi 64-bit program or attach to a process, instead of running normally?
Misc Is Delphi itself compiled as a 64-bit program? If not, why not? (Are they "eating their own dogfood"?) Code inspect the new VCL (assuming the preview comes with VCL source.) What have they done to make the VCL 32/64 compatible? Are there any errors, or if you already know 64-bit code well from other IDEs, are there better approaches they could take instead?
...etc. I could keep typing for hours, but I think that's a good start though :)
I'm sure Embarcadero will provide some testing guidance. For what it's worth this is what I'd test; Mostly because it's the stuff I care about:
Small console application should work.
Allows me to allocate a 4Gb flat hunk of memory. Don't really need that, but it will be the first thing my console application tries, right after WriteLn('I''m using all 64 bits!!!!');
Can create 64bit DLL and the DLL can be imported and used from other environment.
Do some simple things and look at the generated assembler, just for kicks.
Can create Firebird 64bit compatible UDF's
I'd probably try compiling my "utility" units, because they do an fair amount of pointer manipulation, see how they work.
If the VCL works I'd put it through it's paces: create small form, put a button on it, ShowMessage.
Generally speaking the only thing I really need 64bit Delphi for is Firebird 64bit UDFs. That's minor and can be "fixed" using FPC. I assume the best testing will be done by people that actually need 64 bit delphi. And those people don't need testing suggestions.
The base foundation stuff would come first, to ensure that Delphi 64 can be used for what Delphi 32 can't be used:
compiler correctness: first and foremost, no internal errors, no incorrect code-gen
ability to compile to 64bit DLLs and stability of those
stress the memory manager: with large objects, fragmented allocation, multi-threaded allocations, etc.
multi-threading: is it stable? is it efficient? does it scale? that for core RTL functions and units, and not forgetting the reference-counted types.
floating point: does the compiler deliver proper SSE? are the maths functions properly implemented and correct? what happens if you stress the SSE register set with complex expressions?
And as a bonus, ability to accept 64bit object files from the usual C++ compilers.
Non visual stuff ... I think. There is already success from some beta testers that already ported their libraries. I don't know the preview but from the information I don't have I would assume more complex non visual scenarios currently make sense. Anyone who knows it better please correct me ...
I think the preview first allows you to setup a migration strategy, this would be my intention. The VCL ... intended to work on one code base and maybe backport your code to purepascal instead of assembler.
Mike
I release a single executable (.EXE) for a desktop program using Delphi 2009. I have no external DLLs or resources that I need for the program to run.
I use two components: LMD Innovative's ELPack and Sergey Tkachenko's TRichView that are compiled into my executable.
When I build my production version, using the "Release" build configuration, the executable file produced is 13,533 KB.
Prior to using Delphi 2009, I was using Delphi 4. The executable it produced was only 2,671 KB while incorporating the same two components and basically having the same code as my current version.
I do understand that Delphi 2009 is completely Unicode (which is the main reason why I upgraded), and being Unicode can cause up to a doubling of size. But this is about 5 times larger.
Is there a reason why my executable has to remain 5 times larger? Or are there some simple ways to cut down a significant chunk of the executable size?
Please note. Some people are answering with ways to compress the Delphi EXE. That is not what I am trying to do. I am trying to simply see why so much space is being used to remove what might not be necessary. If that is done, compression can still be done afterwards if so desired.
It really doesn't matter how big or small the executable is once it is installed. It is for downloading purposes and to minimize server load and download times that you want to compress it. I prefer to use Inno Setup and compress the program inside the install routine itself. Then when it is installed, it is expanded to full size. That both prevents possible detection as a virus and eliminates the extra startup time needed to uncompress the program in memory. Also I code sign both my executable and my install routine and some compression techniques are incompatible with that.
For more info about compressing, see the StackOverflow question: Delphi EXE compressor?
ldsandon asked me to provide exactly what options I'm using, so here they are:
(source: beholdgenealogy.com)
(source: beholdgenealogy.com)
When moving from Delphi 7 to Delphi 2010., our .exe's grew for example from 16 megs to 35 megs.
I asked a question similar to yours on the Embarcadero forum a few weeks ago. (link) In my OP, I listed a series of links on this subject that you might find helpful.
We tried using UPX to compress our .exe's. Letting it work for hours significantly reduced our .exe, but we probably won't use it in production for these reasons:
We have quite a few .exe's and don't want to wait 1/2-day on each build. (It's possible that we could find a non-brute force set of parameters to UPX that would reduce this...)
Although the size of the .exe is reduced, our shippable was not, because our installer (not surprisingly) is unable squeeze much more compression out of the already compressed file... whereas it was able to reduce the original 16 meg .exe down to 8 megs.
I've read some reports that at some time (rarely, but not never), UPX exe's triggered various anti-virus programs to report the application contained a virus. (I don't recall the date, site, or details of where I saw this, so it's a bit unfair of me to report it here.) But, we are so adverse to taking a risk of that even possibility happening, that UPX is off the table...
The link on the Embarcadero forum also includes a link to another SO thread on this topic.
I continue to be surprised and disappointed at the code bloat we found when moving to Delphi 2010. As Nick notes, 2X for Unicode is quite excessive.
However, the bloat is a relatively minor trade-off when moving to D2010, because, IMO, D2010 is such a terrific upgrade in so many other ways. But, it does mean that we'll probably have to move to shipping 2 CDs rather than one. I'm not looking forward to seeing the reaction to this from our organization...
Without seeing the actual settings that your "Release" build configuration uses explaining this increase in size requires a great deal of speculation.
Beyond some perhaps unlikely factors resulting in a vast increase in the amount of code being "dragged in" even though it isn't used, that magnitude of increase would most easily be explained by the inclusion of debug information.
I would check your compiler and linker settings for:
Debug Information (compiler setting)
TD32 info (linker)
Remote debug info (linker)
Compare these settings in your Delphi 2009 project with the equivalents in Delphi 4.
Factor out the expected 2X increase from Unicode and you end up with a 2.5X increase unaccounted for. This makes sense considering how many versions you've skipped. A lot's been added to the VCL and RTL since Delphi 4, and not all of it is stuff that can be easily smartlinked out, even if you never use it. Depending on how many units you're using, you could be hauling in quite a bit of extra baggage.
Allen Bauer and the compiler team added a new feature into D2010 to help reduce this, but apparently they're treading cautiously and didn't use it in as many places as they could have. Hopefully we'll see more cruft reduction in 2011 and subsequent releases.
I will add my few words.
Linker can remove unused procedures and functions only if it can follow the code hierarchy. The nightmare list for linker listed below:
Message-driven code, the sad news is that this code can't be removed whatsoever, that's why Delphi blank project size continues growing from version to version. Every new windows message (WM_TOUCH for example as long as I know introduced recently) creates procedure call hierarchy that can't be removed (even if you don't have plan to use Touch API at all). This is because every case WM_: fragment is something linker can't decide whether it will be used or not.
Code and data structures accessed from the begin end, initialization, finalization secions of the units. Here you have some control, remove unnecessary calls or object creation. Even if you create objects on demand and only free them in finalization section, make it carefully
Use "upx - compress or expand executable files" # http://upx.sourceforge.net
If you go to tools/configure tools, and set it up like this, you can compress the executable that you're working on easily via a menu item in the IDE.
Another way is to have a look to 'what unit increase the size ?'.
To do this, I use the JCL 'Project Analyser IDE', integrated in the IDE with the JCL/JVCL installation, it show you all the units with their respective size. You can export it in text file.
If you do it with the 2 environnements (D4 & D2009) you will have a lot of pertinent informations.
I've done some tests to see the difference between D2007 and D2010, because we are upgrading to D2010. I've tested a medium sized management GUI application, with about 60 forms (grids with detail forms, frames, etc). We're using TMS components + Remobjects.
D2007:
"normal" compilation: 18.8mb
with debug dcu's: 18.8mb (same size!)
D2010
normal: 23.9
debug dcu's: 48.8mb (!)
So using debug dcu's doubles our exe size...
Test with our business service (no big dfm's):
D2007: 12.3mb
D2010: 17.1mb
So yes, D2010 increases the exe (a bit), but this is not a problem for my customer.
Edit: some information about compiled size:
D2007:
D2010:
So an increase of code size, but a more than doubling of the data!
If you don't want to use an exe compressor then you should give StripReloc a try.
Check format of your dfm-s. They must be in binary format if you want to make your exe smaller.
1) You are generating a detailed map file, and because you've set "used debug dcus" it will also contains symbols for the RTL/VCL units. If it is used by an exception handling systems to generate call stacks and the like, it could be added to the executable. And if not compressed somehow, it could make your .exe size pretty large.
2) Using debug dcus will also make your .exe somewhat larger because usually they are compiled without optimization and debug options set, and they will make also your code slower. They shouldn't be used in a release version.
3) Debug information should add debig info only to the unit and not to the executable, although it is required IIRC to generate the map file.
Since D2010 adds extended RTTI, and RTTI is a notorious factor in increasing exe size, it would be interesting to see how big D2009 binaries are for that application.
If D2009 binaries are significantly smaller, it is not Unicode etc. For my own binaries, I only have a 30% increase or so going from D7 to D2009.
It has been stated earlier that using an executable compresser reduces the size of the exe but not of the install package. However, if you want a good compressor then try ASPack.
#Tom1952: ASPack is pretty fast, just a few seconds to compress a file
Also you can change the Icon. Icon in newest delphi IDE (ie XE3) is Vista/7 compatible and contains all sizes (up to 256x256 as far as I know). So you can reduce exe file size with changing the Icon.
The standard units in you newer delphi may contain more strings and constants such as error strings, that is included even if you disable debug information. Check your uses.
Don't have much of a somution besides not using a specific unit, or removing unneeded data from it.
(My experiences are with Delphi 5)
For Delphi 10.3 Rio with default setiings:
Step 1: Switch from Debug to Release in "Projects" window. This reduced my exe file from 22 MB to 5 MB !
Step 2: Use an exe compresor like ASPack. It further reduced my exe file to 1.3 MB. Unbelievable, isn't it ? :)
Uncheck debug information in project options.
If embarcadero can't provide any solution or explanation!!! I think the solution is simple: don't stuck only with Delphi there is a lot of programming languages, every one is limited only by programmer imagination.