X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: ANNOUNCE: Update of DJGPP port of gcc-6.1.0
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
References:	<201605141522 DOT u4EFMTVi018115 AT delorie DOT com>
	<d784025d-2c27-4bde-8b66-496e38af4633 AT googlegroups DOT com>
From:	"Andris Pavenis (andris DOT pavenis AT iki DOT fi) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com]" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Message-ID:	<2caf6c91-1b5f-f20d-2b3c-6640b3aed905@iki.fi>
Date:	Sun, 15 May 2016 06:32:25 +0300
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
	Thunderbird/45.0
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<d784025d-2c27-4bde-8b66-496e38af4633@googlegroups.com>
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

On 05/15/2016 03:43 AM, rugxulo AT gmail DOT com [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thank you again for your efforts.
>
> On Saturday, May 14, 2016 at 10:22:33 AM UTC-5, Andris Pavenis (andris DOT pavenis AT hates DOT spam) [via djgpp-announce AT hates DOT spam] wrote:
>> This is announcement of an update of DJGPP port of GCC-6.1.0
>>
>> Only changes from the first DJGPP release of gcc-6.1.0 is workaround
>> for random pre-processor failures under Windows 10 32 bit
> I have not yet tried these refreshed builds.
>
> But did you notice that there is a noticeable size decrease?
>
> (BTW, I still don't understand the inclusion of LTO1.EXE ,
> does -flto even work with DJGPP?)
>
> 04/28/2016  05:44 AM        30,062,320 gcc610b.old
> 05/14/2016  06:11 PM        23,315,515 gcc610b.zip
>
> 04/28/2016  05:44 AM        14,063,958 gpp610b.old
> 05/14/2016  06:10 PM        12,033,045 gpp610b.zip
>
> 04/28/2016  05:44 AM        37,051,575 ada610b.old
> 05/14/2016  06:10 PM        27,616,907 ada610b.zip

No missing files packages (lists are identical)

EXE files are noticeably smaller. I do not know the reason. Maybe different binutils version used:

- binutils-2.25 used for previous build under Windows Vista (it worked and as result I was not in 
hurry to upgrade it.

- new build was under Windows 10 32 bit, so new installation and result latest revision of binutils 
2.26

Changes to libcpp/lex.c (there are no other changes in source code) only workarounds random failure 
problem but do not influence output of preprocessor (when it do not fail). It maybe only makes 
preprocessor very slightly slower.

There are only very slight changes in size of static libraries, so perhaps linker changes between 
binutils versions could be a reason.

GCC bootstrap itself is rather serious test as gcc rebuilds itself twice and in case of using 
bootstrap4 even 3 times (previous stage of bootstrap is used to build the next one). The result 
comparison is done once for boostrap (stage2 with stage3) and twice for bootstrap4 (additionally 
stage3 with stage4). Of course that only tests C, C++ and Ada.

Andris

- Raw text -