Date:	Sat, 26 Aug 2000 19:08:00 +0600 (LKT)
From:	Kalum Somaratna aka Grendel <kalum AT lintux DOT cx>
X-Sender:	kalum AT goatbeard DOT grendel DOT net
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: version 2.03 binaries size problem
In-Reply-To:	<otodqso1215f59qn7nj9mbvchjof1jmge8@4ax.com>
Message-ID:	<Pine.LNX.4.21.0008261904520.803-100000@goatbeard.grendel.net>
MIME-Version:	1.0
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

On Fri, 25 Aug 2000, Damian Yerrick spoke the following immortal words,

> On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 20:02:00 +0200, ib AT wupperonline DOT de (Ingo Brueckl)
> wrote:
> 
> >I was using djgpp 2.01 (with gpp2721b and bnu27b) for a project written in
> >C++, which resulted in a binary of approx. (stripped) 177 KByte.
> >
> >Today I tried version 2.03 (with gpp2952b and bnu2951b) and got a binary size
> >of (stripped) 271 KByte, which is a growth of more than 50% for the same
> >sources!
> >
> >Does anyone know why the size increases that much?! What do I get for the
> >extra 100 KByte?
> 
> Exception support, template support, amount of debugging info...
> 
> >Maybe I should try a version 1.x to get an even smaller binary
> >doing the same job?
> 
> No.  To get a smaller binary, use UPX.
>   http://upx.tsx.org/

Maybe the original poster is not interested in the size, but in the
increase in memory footprint, if that is the case UPX, or any other exe
compressor is useless.

Best Wishes,
Grendel

-- 
.---------------------.---------------------.----{)--.
| /"__ ._ _  _  _| _ |`-.grendel AT lintux DOT cx.-'(]__/|| |
| \__/ | (-'| |(_|(-'l_ `-===============-' [_]  .-: |
`--------------------------------------------/|\/| |-'

ProZilla, the new Download Accelerator for Linux (GPL), 
<http://www.lintux.cx/~kalum/prozilla.html>

- Raw text -