Re[2]: [Mingw-users] Size of executables

[Paul S. <pa...@is...>]

Hello Earnie,

Earnie Boyd <ear...@ya...> wrote:

EB> --- Lado Brisar <lb...@so...> wrote:
>> On 19 Sep 2000, at 11:22, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>>
>> > > #if _MSC_VER >= 1000
>> > > #pragma comment(linker,"/FILEALIGN:0x200")
>> > > #endif
>> >
>> > Is this pragma supported by MinGW GCC?
>>
>> Obviously, no. :-)
>> I know, it should be answered in the list "[Mingw produces smaller
>> executables than Msvc]". But, since such list doesn't exist, I have no
>> choice. ;)
>>

EB> I wasn't being sarcastic, I was actually trying to find out if it was or
EB> wasn't.  The next question would be, should it,

    My answer (sarcastic): why on Earth? ;-)

EB> and if so does someone want to supply a patch to gcc/binutils to allow it to?

    Putting some feature isn't hard, hard is having it working. DJ
Delorie added capability of producing implibs to ld, but what the
advantage if implibs produced are broken? What the benefit of
--enable-stcall-fixup option if only time when I finally found usage
for it it flawed?

     So, if original poster could send me MSVC-produced object with
that pragma, I can hack it, but I'll only test that executables
produced with it don't segfault on loading, rest of testing I'll leave
for you, ok?

    Anyway, here's a list of linker pragmas recognized by latest ld
(how to activate them from C code is other question):

-attr
-heap
-stack
-export


EB> Cheers,

EB> =====
EB> --- <http://earniesystems.safeshopper.com> ---
EB>    Earnie Boyd: <mailto:ear...@ya...>


--
Paul Sokolovsky, IT Specialist
http://www.brainbench.com/transcript.jsp?pid=11135