X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
Date:	Mon, 08 Nov 2004 16:03:45 +0200
From:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT gnu DOT org>
Sender:	halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Message-ID:	<01c4c59b$Blat.v2.2.2$e84bc8e0@zahav.net.il>
X-Mailer:	emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 2.2.2
In-reply-to:	<418f5e01@news.upm.es> (message from Manuel Collado on Mon, 08
	Nov 2004 12:52:26 +0100)
Subject:	Re: Reducing size of executables in binary distributions
References:	<418b6a02 AT news DOT upm DOT es> <01c4c360$Blat.v2.2.2$fe8321e0 AT zahav DOT net DOT il> <418f5e01 AT news DOT upm DOT es>
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 12:52:26 +0100
> From: Manuel Collado <m DOT collado AT aaron DOT ls DOT fi DOT upm DOT es>
> 
> >>Perhaps the difference in sizes is due to different compiler/library 
> >>versions.
> > 
> > No, the difference is only 2KB and is due to different ways the binary
> > was stripped and/or different Binutils version (`strip' is part of
> > Binutils).  The 2K difference is due to alignment considerations (it's
> > a long story).
> 
> I was speaking about the difference between the executable in the *s.zip 
> file and the executable rebuilt from sources:
> 
>   324,608 - 294,912 = 29,696

In that case, I believe your guess is correct: it's because of the
difference in compiler versions (I don't think the library has changed
so much since then).

- Raw text -