Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 17:09:21 +0200 (MET DST) From: pad2369 Message-Id: <200004031509.RAA27649@maggiore.iperbole.bologna.it> To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: IMP/PHP3 Imap webMail Program 2.0.11 Sender: pad2369 AT iperbole DOT bologna DOT it Subject: Re: [WANTED]Old GCC/GXX's Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Andris Pavenis : > > On Sun, 2 Apr 2000, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 24 Mar 2000, Jeff Williams wrote: > > > > > As was also pointed out, 2.7.x has the advantage of being rather > compact: > > > > > > gcc2952b.zip unzips to 60 files and 5261021 bytes > > > gcc2721b.zip unzips to 37 files and 2725475 bytes > > > > GCC 2.9X is distributed unstripped. If your disk space is at premioum, > > you can strip the executables and cut their size in half. > > > Yes You can get some space by stripping binaries included > with binary archives of gcc-2.95.2 (Perhaps about 10- 30%). You can get > even more by compressing them with UPX (or DJP) > > The reason why I didn't strip binaries was to provide user to possibility > to use symify on binaries if they crashes due to some reason (at least > user can do that with original binary which crashed, instead of forcing us > to guess which update he/she had) Unstripped binaries not only occupy more disk space, but they also need more downloading time (expecially with slow connections like 14.4. modems it makes big difference). I think it wouldn't bad to have both versions (with and without symbols) in the download area, so that it is possible to download the stripped one (ok, this means you cannot symify it, but this is also true if you strip it on your hard disk :-) ciao Giacomo ------------------------------------------------------ Giacomo Degli Esposti - pad2369 AT iperbole DOT bologna DOT it