Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 19:35:36 +0300 (WET)
From: Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT lanet DOT lv>
X-Sender: pavenis AT ieva06
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Cc: JT Williams <jeffw AT darwin DOT sfbr DOT org>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] DJGPP port of binutils 2.12.1
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1020620191632.15506A-100000@is>
Message-ID: <Pine.A41.4.05.10206201932480.20082-100000@ieva06>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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
Precedence: bulk



On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> 
> On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, JT Williams wrote:
> 
> > Impressive size difference; I'm always
> > glad to recover a few MB of disk space :-/
> > 
> > % djzip --size 2.11.2-r1/bnu2112b.zip
> > 	2.11.2-r1/bnu2112b.zip:   6088008                   65 files
> > 
> > % djzip --size 2.12.1/bnu2121b.zip
> > 	2.12.1/bnu2121b.zip:   3794728                   73 files
> > 
> > I wondered if this might be due to stripped executables,
> 
> The executables are probably compressed with UPX.
> 

True. I used UPX to compress executables of binutils and all
recent GCC versions (3.X). One can look scripts in source archives for
details. I hope this not a problem. 

Andris