From: j DOT aldrich6 AT genie DOT com
Message-Id: <199607110153.AA100430035@relay1.geis.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 96 01:40:00 UTC 0000
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Subject: Re: Executable size

Reply to message 8596826    from NORBERTJ AT PANI on 07/09/96  6:43PM


>Thank you all.  As a beginner, I also asked the size question.  It is not
>unreasonable to wonder and useful to be able to understand the whys and
>wherefores.  The size of hello world has not stymied me in my C studies
>and it is not a complaint.

When I first got DJGPP v2, I was a bit surprised by the difference myself,
but fortunately I lurked around the mailing list long enough to learn why
without making a fool of myself asking.  :)  Also, I started with large
compilations, and didn't fool around with the small stuff until I got into
an actual C course.

Actually, we aren't upset when somebody asks, "Why is it so big?"
What is annoying is when people start whining and complaining that it
is unacceptable and how DJGPP stinks so badly because of it.  :/

John

P.S.:  I would like to point out something else as well - under DJGPP v1,
the stubbed images were indeed smaller than with v2, but the go32
extender was 3 times as large as CWSDPMI.  If you wanted to make
a fully independent executable, you were forced to bind the entire thing
to your image!  (And you thought hello worlds under v2 were huge...)
I haven't done the exact math, but I believe that a v1 image bound with
go32 is actually _larger_ than a stubbed v2 image plus a separate
CWSDPMI.EXE.