Mail Archives: djgpp/1996/02/19/08:58:08
Xref: | news2.mv.net comp.os.msdos.djgpp:1242
|
From: | wkim+@pitt.edu (Wonkoo Kim)
|
Newsgroups: | comp.os.msdos.djgpp
|
Subject: | Why bigger exe size with LIBGRX+BCC2GRX v2.0?
|
Date: | 17 Feb 1996 04:49:36 GMT
|
Organization: | University of Pittsburgh
|
Lines: | 18
|
Distribution: | world
|
Message-ID: | <4g3mp0$qit@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>
|
Reply-To: | wkim+@pitt.edu (Wonkoo Kim)
|
NNTP-Posting-Host: | ehdup-c3-8.rmt.net.pitt.edu
|
To: | djgpp AT delorie DOT com
|
DJ-Gateway: | from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
|
I don't know if this is due to djgpp v2.0, or due to its graphics libraries.
I'm wondering why I have much bigger exe size with v2.0 than v1.x.
My graphics program compiled with v1.x (v1.12?) was 146KB, but for
the same sources, newly compiled exe with v2.0 is 210KB. I noticed
v2.0 beta gave me much bigger size (217KB), but I just thought that
libraries of beta version might not be optimized. The released version
gave me 7KB smaller than beta, but I don't quite understand why
I still have much bigger .exe size. I striped off the symbols from .exe
and all compilation options (-O2) were the same for those .exes.
(Used libraries are libgrx, bcc2grx, libm, and the graphics program
use bcc2grx much as it's an image viewer and does some processing.)
Any comments?
//--------------------------------------------------------------------
// Wonkoo Kim (wkim+@pitt.edu)
- Raw text -