# Bring Julia code to embedded hardware (ARM)

**URL:** <https://discourse.julialang.org/t/bring-julia-code-to-embedded-hardware-arm/19979>\
**Category:** Maker\
**Created:** [January 23, 2019, 12:57pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/bring-julia-code-to-embedded-hardware-arm/19979 "2019-01-23T12:57:50Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 66

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![enriquer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e9bcb4/32.png) [@enriquer](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/enriquer)\
**Post date:** [May 14, 2021, 2:47pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/bring-julia-code-to-embedded-hardware-arm/19979/66 "2021-05-14T14:47:26Z")

</div>

> [@asprionj](#):
>
> To make sure: You compiled everything that is called in the script into the sysimage? That is, the remaining overhead is pure “Julia startup / initialisation”…? So the question would be whether (and if yes, how) this can be eliminated. An embedded system is usually expected (or even required) to start up quickly, so 10s is quite a lot of time (that would be added to the startup time of the system, incl. linux etc., itself).

I just replied to this in the new thread.

> [@Looking for advice on achieving faster startup times](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/looking-for-advice-on-achieving-faster-startup-times/61160/2):
>
> I am letting PackageCompiler.create\_sysimage handle the details of the compilation. I am giving it as precompile\_execution\_file the same script I am using for timing, so I was hoping that it would be precompiling anything that is significantly expensive, but that may not be not the case. I have just checked, and there are a few statements that, when using the sysimage, still take in the order of 1-2 seconds (each) to run the first time they appear in the script, but not on subsequent instances…

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/bring-julia-code-to-embedded-hardware-arm/19979)._