From: William G Sternbach <wgs77@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
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
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: wgs77@... and
Thanks in advance for your Email reply.
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
From: Danny Smith <dannysmith@cl...> - 2003-01-26 03:33:59
----- Original Message -----
From: "William G Sternbach" <wgs77@...>
To: <mingw-users@...>; <earnie_boyd@...>;
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
> 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.