X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f From: rugxulo AT gmail DOT com Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: DJGPP port of Binutils 2.17 uploaded Date: 24 Mar 2007 21:41:31 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 29 Message-ID: <1174797691.156478.182470@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> References: <200703231838 DOT l2NIcO3g014936 AT delorie DOT com> <1174796501 DOT 462628 DOT 168070 AT y66g2000hsf DOT googlegroups DOT com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.13.115.246 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1174797692 14957 127.0.0.1 (25 Mar 2007 04:41:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse AT google DOT com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 04:41:32 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <1174796501.462628.168070@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.3) Gecko/20070309 Firefox/2.0.0.3,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Complaints-To: groups-abuse AT google DOT com Injection-Info: y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com; posting-host=65.13.115.246; posting-account=qvj7NA0AAABallzf-E3FtUCXEd65I-J8 To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Mar 24, 11:21 pm, rugx DOT DOT DOT AT gmail DOT com wrote: > On Mar 23, 1:37 pm, Gordon DOT Schumac DOT DOT DOT AT seagate DOT com wrote: > > > Send Binutils specific bug reports to . > > Send suggestions and bug reports concerning the DJGPP port > > to comp.os.msdos.djgpp or . > > If you are not sure if the failure is really a ed failure > > or a djgpp specific failure, report it here and *not* to > > . > > > -- > > Gordon Schumacher > > Why is BinUtils 2.17 so much bigger in .EXE size than 2.16.1?? I'm not > trying to be a pedant, I'm just curious why it's 5x the size of the > previous version (15 MB vs. 3 MB). Any obvious reason anyone know of? > Well, AFAIK, it's still got symbolic debug info in every .EXE (the smallest is READELF.EXE at 588,307 bytes, which is still bigger than any .EXE in 2.16.1). Running 'strip *.exe' seems to shrink them down to almost the same as 2.16.1's total. Gordon, maybe you should repackage / reupload the BNU217B.ZIP since I don't think most users will be debugging these, and it'll spare everyone's bandwidth in the long run. Oh, and before I forget ... thanks a million for your hard work! ;-)