From:	Damian Yerrick <Bullcr_pd_yerrick AT hotmail DOT comRemoveBullcr_p>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: is it possible to use strip option in call to compiler
Organization:	Pin Eight Software http://pineight.8m.com/
Message-ID:	<h88flscp1fruhkfds4f9fucom5sde09jk1@4ax.com>
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1000626083838 DOT 5330D-100000 AT is> <39573ebd AT dnews DOT tpgi DOT com DOT au>
X-Newsreader:	Forte Agent 1.7/32.534
MIME-Version:	1.0
Lines:	22
X-Trace:	/KtlGUserLWELASruduRD2s37NIK2z+rylJdT3Bop0rOwqsJkufTl3xIFW/zyUShDThdyLM939Vo!BQuYHQBEQ8ICOA6oxCH52nL5A17JPVoWYAtbVeSgmPPVGFzZZZIqVnVmHFawuqmCdAyhqo7CJk0n!ZPe2
X-Complaints-To:	abuse AT gte DOT net
X-Abuse-Info:	Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-Info:	Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
NNTP-Posting-Date:	Mon, 26 Jun 2000 18:31:24 GMT
Distribution:	world
Date:	Mon, 26 Jun 2000 18:31:24 GMT
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Al <al_ AT tpg DOT com DOT au> wrote:

>Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> wrote:
>
>> Hmm?  If you use the -s compiler switch, the produced executable is
>> already stripped, so running strip.exe on it should not change its
>> size by even a single byte.  If this doesn't work for you, it's either
>> some usage error or a bug in one of the tools (the linker or
>> strip.exe).
>
>Well I've found that running strip.exe after -s does reduce the
>executable size by a smaller fraction.

What versions of gcc and binutils are you running?

-- 
Damian Yerrick
"I refuse to listen to those who refuse to listen to reason."
See the whole sig: http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~yerricde/sig.html

This is McAfee VirusScan. Add these two lines to your signature to
prevent the spread of signature viruses.  http://www.mcafee.com/

- Raw text -