Message-Id:	<m0ycazA-000S4EC@inti.gov.ar>
Comments:	Authenticated sender is <salvador AT natacha DOT inti DOT gov DOT ar>
From:	"Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET)" <salvador AT inti DOT gov DOT ar>
Organization:	INTI
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Thu, 21 May 1998 16:28:14 +0000
MIME-Version:	1.0
Subject:	Re: gcc 2.8.1 outputs are much larger than gcc 2.7.2 ... why ??
In-reply-to:	<B0000030603@stargate.astr.lu.lv>
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 980521165059 DOT 1049C-100000 AT is>

"Andris Pavenis" <pavenis AT lanet DOT lv> wrote:

> There is not very much local labels in
> a single C++ source file so the increase in size is not so well visible. 
> But there is MANY C++ sources in libstdcxx.a so the increase in executable
> size is visible much better.

Just to add another case: The size of my editor is:

GCC 2.7.2.1 + Binutils 2.8 => 3.5 Mb
GCC 2.8.0  + Binutils 2.8 => 5.5 Mb
 
Stripped EXE: between 640 and 800 Kb.

And the needed memory by GDB is huge in the last case, in fast is annoying me 
because I must exit RHIDE after debugging.
And Eli: beleive me or not: After debugging the editor with 80 Mb of virtual 
memory free I can't re-compile the program again because I have 1 Mb or less of 
free physical memory. Normally both crashes: gcc AND RHIDE. I can't understand 
why. Looks like I need 20Mb more of physical memory ;-)

SET 
------------------------------------ 0 --------------------------------
Visit my home page: http://set-soft.home.ml.org/
or
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Vista/6552/
Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET). (Electronics Engineer)
Alternative e-mail: set-soft AT usa DOT net set AT computer DOT org
ICQ: 2951574
Address: Curapaligue 2124, Caseros, 3 de Febrero
Buenos Aires, (1678), ARGENTINA
TE: +(541) 759 0013

- Raw text -