From:	Jason Green <news AT jgreen4 DOT fsnet DOT co DOT uk>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: Sizes of executables
Date:	Sun, 13 Feb 2000 16:48:25 +0000
Organization:	Customer of Planet Online
Lines:	15
Message-ID:	<0u3daskpfv3qmis4m93sa1035r9lh7ni2l@4ax.com>
References:	<r3a6assbjgn7jvmc710ups09utouuk5gqj AT 4ax DOT com> <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1000213092812 DOT 29873E-100000 AT is>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	modem-163.fluorine.dialup.pol.co.uk
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Trace:	news7.svr.pol.co.uk 950460973 11232 62.136.8.163 (13 Feb 2000 16:56:13 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date:	13 Feb 2000 16:56:13 GMT
X-Complaints-To:	abuse AT theplanet DOT net
X-Newsreader:	Forte Agent 1.7/32.534
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> wrote:

> > I don't know why the FAQ does not suggest -Os
> 
> Because I think it's not very wise (to say the least) to trade
> run-time speed for some KBytes on disk.

Hmm, maybe you are right that in the context of the FAQ the correct
advice is to use -O2.  (For desktop applications this is best).

The reason I asked about -Os was because I thought there might be
other objections to using it apart from the performance trade-off.

If this is not the case then it could be bad advice to say that -O2
gives the smallest code without knowing the user's application.

- Raw text -