From: William G S. <wg...@ju...> - 2003-01-25 23:33:28
|
Earnie & rest of group: I hope its ok if I ask you a question about gcc version 2.95 versus gcc version 3.2. I loved gcc Version 2.95 because version 2.95 produced tiny EXE files. I noticed that Version 3.2 produces EXE files which are about twice as big as Version 2.95. This is true even if you are compiling "C" programs (without C++). I've added the -s option to strip out the debugging information from the EXE file, but still Version 3.2 with -s still produces much large EXE files than version 2.95 did. Do you know if there is some compiler option which was optional in version 2.95 but became the default in version 3.2 which is making EXE files produced by version 3.2 much bigger than with version 2.95? Also, since I sometimes do not receive the daily digests due to an overly aggressive Spam filter, please send your response directly to: wg...@ju... and wil...@ci... Thanks in advance for your Email reply. - Bill ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com |
From: Danny S. <dan...@cl...> - 2003-01-26 03:33:59
|
----- Original Message ----- From: "William G Sternbach" <wg...@ju...> To: <min...@li...>; <ear...@ya...>; <wil...@ci...> Sent: Wednesday, 22 January 2003 05:14 Subject: [Mingw-users] GCC Version 3.2 versus GCC version 2.95.3 > Earnie & rest of group: > > I hope its ok if I ask you a question about gcc version 2.95 versus gcc > version 3.2. > I loved gcc Version 2.95 because version 2.95 produced tiny EXE files. > I noticed that Version 3.2 produces EXE files which are about twice as > big as Version 2.95. What exactly do you mean by "twice as big"? Are you talking about 12kb vs 6 kb or 1200 kb vs 600 kb? If you compare, eg recent binutils exe distro (built with 3.2.1) with older binutils built with 2.95.3, the newer ones are slighty larger (some of which is due to addtional functionality) but certainly not twice the size. GCC 3.2 (20020817-1) does add about 6 kb fixed overhead for Dwarf2 EH handling, so maybe that is "doubling" the size of tiny exes's The GCC 3.2.1 RC use sjlj EH which does not have this fixed overhead. Danny |