From: Andrew Cottrell <andnews AT ihug DOT com DOT oz DOT au>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: binaries double sized
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 21:05:33 +1100
Organization: ECLiPSE
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <7ft0vugk1u9qk08oj0l7cavqtp4oujplju@4ax.com>
References: <e8982227 DOT 0212050502 DOT 78202948 AT posting DOT google DOT com> <200212051542 DOT 31205 DOT pavenis AT lanet DOT lv>
NNTP-Posting-Host: p215-tnt7.syd.ihug.com.au
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: lust.ihug.co.nz 1039169136 22394 203.173.144.215 (6 Dec 2002 10:05:36 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse AT ihug DOT co DOT nz
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 10:05:36 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.92/32.572
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

>On Thursday 05 December 2002 15:02, Wlodzimierz ABX Skiba wrote:
>> Is it only me or binaries in 3.2.1 versus 3.2 are doubled in size ? Is
>> it intentional or accidental change in compilation ? Here is
>> comparision:
>Binaries of gcc-3.2 (and some earlier versions) were compressed with UPX. 
>Unfortunatelly due to some UPX breakage with new GCC or/and binutils versions
>this time I only stripped executables. Therefore they are larger.

By the way the resulting zip file that you download is almost the same
size if the files were or were not UPX'd.