Message-ID:	<33898761.6D89@cs.com>
Date:	Mon, 26 May 1997 12:51:45 +0000
From:	"John M. Aldrich" <fighteer AT cs DOT com>
Reply-To:	fighteer AT cs DOT com
Organization:	Two pounds of chaos and a pinch of salt
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Why does gcc make such big binaries?
References:	<199705261555 DOT LAA05569 AT delorie DOT com>

DJ Delorie wrote:
> 
> I meant "Note: use "strip <program>.exe" to make <program>.exe smaller."

I think Eli is correct; stripped output should be the default and symify
should warn you of this:  "Note:  <program>.exe has no debugging
information." or some such.

> See if you can figure out where I'd put these messages:
> 
> "You probably forgot -lstdcxx, or you should use gxx instead of gcc"

Don't you mean '-liostr'?  or '-lgpp'?  The usual problem comes with
those two.  '-lstdcxx' is used for a completely different set of things,
and is not automatically added by gxx.

In any case, this should go in gcc.exe, if it detects undefined
references to 'cout', etc.

> "You need to install gpp2721b.zip (or any newer version)"
> 
> "You need to install bnu27b.zip (or any newer version)"

Obviously, the same applies here.  The conditions (missing as/ld, or
missing iostream.h/libgpp.a) should be fairly simple to detect in gcc.

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| John M. Aldrich, aka Fighteer I |     mailto:fighteer AT cs DOT com      |
| Proud owner of what might one   |   http://www.cs.com/fighteer    |
| day be a spectacular MUD...     | Plan: To make Bill Gates suffer |
---------------------------------------------------------------------

- Raw text -