Xref: news-dnh.mv.net comp.os.msdos.djgpp:56 Path: news-dnh.mv.net!mv!news.sprintlink.net!gatech!news.mathworks.com!news2.near.net!news.umass.edu!nic.umass.edu!twain.oit.umass.edu!apj From: apj AT twain DOT oit DOT umass DOT edu (ADAM P JENKINS) Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: size of .EXE files Date: 2 Jun 1995 16:29:45 GMT Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst Lines: 26 References: Nntp-Posting-Host: twain.oit.umass.edu To: djgpp AT sun DOT soe DOT clarkson DOT edu Jeff Vogel (Faculty) (jhvogel AT me DOT umn DOT edu) wrote: : I have recently intalled djgpp112, and switched from using Microsoft's : QuickC (I put it back in the box - gcc has a lot more features). I have : been a little disappointed, however, in the size of the coff or .EXE files : produced. They are, for the few programs I have compared, about 50% larger : than those produced by QuickC, and if I used Microsoft's /EXEPACK link : option, the difference is a factor of about 2. Note that this is just comparing : coff files to QuickC executables. : My question is this - is there an option I haven't found for producing smaller : object/executables? I am not including debugging information, and have tried : optimizing, but so far I haven't changed the size much. I should also mention : that the programs I have tried are typically about 500 lines of code. Thanks : for any help. : -- : Jeff Vogel : jhvogel AT me DOT umn DOT edu Try using the '-s' options when linking the objects to make the coff file, or strip the coff file after linking with the strip command. This helps some. -- Adam P. Jenkins apj AT twain DOT oit DOT umass DOT edu