From:	Hans-Bernhard Broeker <broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: DJGPP EXE file size vs Linux
Date:	1 Nov 2000 03:22:50 GMT
Organization:	Aachen University of Technology (RWTH)
Lines:	23
Message-ID:	<8to2aa$60v$1@nets3.rz.RWTH-Aachen.DE>
References:	<39FF85E3 DOT 35B34DAC AT usq DOT edu DOT au>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	acp3bf.physik.rwth-aachen.de
X-Trace:	nets3.rz.RWTH-Aachen.DE 973048970 6175 137.226.32.75 (1 Nov 2000 03:22:50 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:	abuse AT rwth-aachen DOT de
NNTP-Posting-Date:	1 Nov 2000 03:22:50 GMT
Originator:	broeker@
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Ron House <house AT usq DOT edu DOT au> wrote:
> Hi all, I have an app that was originally C, but later I included
> classes and made it C++. Since then the file size has blown out hugely,

If an executable size blowup occured exactly at the point you switched
from C to C++, then the most likely cause of it are large static
arrays. C++ can require them to be present at their full size, right
in the executable file.

> puzzling, the stripped sizes of the exe under Linux and DJGPP are vastly
> different: 950K vs 1.9Mb. 

That's most probably by unfair comparison. To make a reasonable test,
here, you have to compare a Linux binary built with linking option
'-static'. You'll find that this creates a program that'll be about as
large as the DJGPP version, I think.

To know for real where all that size is going, make an 'nm' or
'objdump' listing of the executable sorted by size of the individual
object.  Or at least have a solid look at 'size -A' outputs.
-- 
Hans-Bernhard Broeker (broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de)
Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.

- Raw text -