From:	Andrew Cottrell <andnews AT ihug DOT com DOT oz DOT au>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: binaries double sized
Date:	Fri, 06 Dec 2002 21:05:33 +1100
Organization:	ECLiPSE
Lines:	12
Message-ID:	<7ft0vugk1u9qk08oj0l7cavqtp4oujplju@4ax.com>
References:	<e8982227 DOT 0212050502 DOT 78202948 AT posting DOT google DOT com> <200212051542 DOT 31205 DOT pavenis AT lanet DOT lv>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	p215-tnt7.syd.ihug.com.au
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Trace:	lust.ihug.co.nz 1039169136 22394 203.173.144.215 (6 Dec 2002 10:05:36 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:	abuse AT ihug DOT co DOT nz
NNTP-Posting-Date:	Fri, 6 Dec 2002 10:05:36 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader:	Forte Agent 1.92/32.572
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

>On Thursday 05 December 2002 15:02, Wlodzimierz ABX Skiba wrote:
>> Is it only me or binaries in 3.2.1 versus 3.2 are doubled in size ? Is
>> it intentional or accidental change in compilation ? Here is
>> comparision:
>Binaries of gcc-3.2 (and some earlier versions) were compressed with UPX. 
>Unfortunatelly due to some UPX breakage with new GCC or/and binutils versions
>this time I only stripped executables. Therefore they are larger.

By the way the resulting zip file that you download is almost the same
size if the files were or were not UPX'd.

- Raw text -