Xref:	news-dnh.mv.net comp.os.msdos.djgpp:56
Path:	news-dnh.mv.net!mv!news.sprintlink.net!gatech!news.mathworks.com!news2.near.net!news.umass.edu!nic.umass.edu!twain.oit.umass.edu!apj
From:	apj AT twain DOT oit DOT umass DOT edu (ADAM P JENKINS)
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: size of .EXE files
Date:	2 Jun 1995 16:29:45 GMT
Organization:	University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Lines:	26
References:	<jhvogel DOT 802103492 AT me DOT umn DOT edu>
Nntp-Posting-Host:	twain.oit.umass.edu
To:	djgpp AT sun DOT soe DOT clarkson DOT edu

Jeff Vogel (Faculty) (jhvogel AT me DOT umn DOT edu) wrote:
: I have recently intalled djgpp112, and switched from using Microsoft's
: QuickC (I put it back in the box - gcc has a lot more features). I have
: been a little disappointed, however, in the size of the coff or .EXE files
: produced. They are, for the few programs I have compared, about 50% larger
: than those produced by QuickC, and if I used Microsoft's /EXEPACK link
: option, the difference is a factor of about 2. Note that this is just comparing
: coff files to QuickC executables.

: My question is this - is there an option I haven't found for producing smaller
: object/executables? I am not including debugging information, and have tried
: optimizing, but so far I haven't changed the size much. I should also mention
: that the programs I have tried are typically about 500 lines of code. Thanks
: for any help.

: --
: 	Jeff Vogel
: 	jhvogel AT me DOT umn DOT edu

Try using the '-s' options when linking the objects to make the coff
file, or strip the coff file after linking with the strip command.
This helps some.
--

Adam P. Jenkins
apj AT twain DOT oit DOT umass DOT edu

- Raw text -