Date:	Sat, 26 Aug 2000 09:47:09 +0200
From:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender:	halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To:	ib AT wupperonline DOT de
Message-Id:	<9743-Sat26Aug2000094708+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer:	Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.2.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.5b
CC:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to:	<39a7068b@wupperonline.de> (ib@wupperonline.de)
Subject:	Re: version 2.03 binaries size problem
References:	<39a7068b AT wupperonline DOT de>
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

> From: ib AT wupperonline DOT de (Ingo Brueckl)
> Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
> Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 20:02:00 +0200
> 
> 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!

Most of the bloat is not from the DJGPP's C library, it's from the C++
compiler and libstdcxx.a, the standard C++ library.  In my experience,
complex C programs are about 10K-15K larger when built with DJGPP
v2.03 than those built with v2.01.  The extra 15KB account for the new
functionality added between v2.01 and v2.03, such as ability to pass
long command lines via the `system' function, better and more stable
support for CPU exceptions, signals, and crash traceback, etc.

> Maybe I should try a version 1.x to get an even smaller binary doing the same
> job?

If you want to avoid code bloat, don't use C++.

- Raw text -