From:	"S. Emami" <savanna AT tpg DOT com DOT au>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
References:	<9cg46n$kk5$1 AT sunlight DOT pku DOT edu DOT cn>
Subject:	Re: gcc for djgpp vs borland c compiler
Lines:	14
X-Newsreader:	Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host:	203.26.30.52
Message-ID:	<3aed4b14@dnews.tpgi.com.au>
X-Original-Trace:	30 Apr 2001 21:23:00 +1000, 203.26.30.52
Date:	Mon, 30 Apr 2001 20:58:41 +1000
NNTP-Posting-Host:	203.12.160.33
X-Complaints-To:	abuse AT telstra DOT net
X-Trace:	nsw.nnrp.telstra.net 988628081 203.12.160.33 (Mon, 30 Apr 2001 20:54:41 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date:	Mon, 30 Apr 2001 20:54:41 EST
Organization:	Customer of Telstra Big Pond Direct
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Its all about how much of an unused library is included in your executable.
You can write an assembly language program to print "Hello World!" in about
about 20 bytes, so it shouldn't suprise you that one C compiler makes it
100,000 bytes and another makes it 50,000 bytes, if it only needs about 20
bytes!
If you wrote a large program, the differences would change, hopefully all
becoming quite similiar.

by Shervin Emami
http://www.geocities.com/emami_s/Draw3D.html
http://www.geocities.com/emami_s/assembly.html

- Raw text -