Date:	Thu, 10 Jun 1999 10:57:34 +0300 (IDT)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	"Igor I. Tovstopyat-Nelip" <itovsto AT emory DOT edu>
cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Hello World and File size
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.GSO.4.05.9906091154270.13144-100000@paladin.cc.emory.edu>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.990610105709.17697H-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Wed, 9 Jun 1999, Igor I. Tovstopyat-Nelip wrote:

> Though, I still think that dynamic libraries might be not that bad. For
> instance, all kinds of Unixes use them intensively and nevertheless may be
> regarded as solid and reliable systems.

That's because a typical Unix system has a person called ``sysadmin''
who won't let you install any software that overwrites system
libraries.  Compare that with the usual non-administration of a
typical desktop PC, and you will understand the reasons for the
difference.

> As a beginner I just didn't know that DJGPP produces a debugging
> version of executable by default (which is not usually a case in Unix).

This isn't true: Unix linkers also produce unstripped programs by
default (after all, DJGPP uses a linker that is a port form Unix).

The difference in size might be due to a fact that GCC produces much
more debugging info than other Unix compilers, and also because many
modern Unix systems use dynamic linking (ala DLLs) as the default.

- Raw text -