Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 10:10:28 +0200 (IST) From: Eli Zaretskii X-Sender: eliz AT is To: Jean cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: Re: DJGPP V2.03 versus V2.01 ERRATA In-Reply-To: <200002111327.OAA12218@smtp.wirehub.nl> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: dj-admin AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Fri, 11 Feb 2000, Jean wrote: > libwmemu increase I looked into my build lib and you're build lib, > and saw that in my lib there were symbol names of LC0..LC1 L0..L20 > etc in it, with your'e lib hasn't This comes from the assembler: it leaves local labels in the code it produces. You cannot correct this without rebuilding Binutils (I used a version of Binutils 2.9.1 that I built myself). But the important thing is that these local labels are all stripped when you strip the executable after linking. So I don't understand how come you get larger executables. > *.exe increase > With the same size of *.o files you should think that the linked > *.exe file would be the same, but ellaas the exe of V203 is stil > 1.348 Kb agains 1.182 Kb of V201 ( 166K bigger ) > Comparing the map files I saw: > .text segment has increased by 65K What compiler version are you using? ("gcc --version" should print it.) Are your programs written in C or in C++? > .text and .bss segment had so called type_info's in it. > two new segments called gcc_exe and eh_frame are in total 100K. Is this 100K increase before or after stripping? I only see a 20K up from v2.01 in stripped executable size when compiling C programs. I cannot imagine how could you get 100K more, especially since you probably don't use many of the libc.a functions.