Message-ID:	<003501bfe0c0$556e5520$e613ddcc@lhaglund>
From:	"Josh Haglund" <lhaglund AT wiktel DOT com>
To:	<djgpp AT delorie DOT 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> <h88flscp1fruhkfds4f9fucom5sde09jk1 AT 4ax DOT com>
Subject:	Re: is it possible to use strip option in call to compiler
Date:	Wed, 28 Jun 2000 00:18:39 -0500
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

gcc2952b
bnu2951b

Josh Haglund
lhaglund AT wiktel DOT com

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Damian Yerrick" <Bullcr_pd_yerrick AT hotmail DOT comRemoveBullcr_p>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
To: <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: is it possible to use strip option in call to compiler


> 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 -