X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
From: rugxulo AT gmail DOT com
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: DJGPP port of Binutils 2.17 uploaded
Date: 24 Mar 2007 21:41:31 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <1174797691.156478.182470@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
References: <200703231838 DOT l2NIcO3g014936 AT delorie DOT com>
   <1174796501 DOT 462628 DOT 168070 AT y66g2000hsf DOT googlegroups DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.13.115.246
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1174797692 14957 127.0.0.1 (25 Mar 2007 04:41:32 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse AT google DOT com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 04:41:32 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <1174796501.462628.168070@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.3) Gecko/20070309 Firefox/2.0.0.3,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse AT google DOT com
Injection-Info: y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com; posting-host=65.13.115.246;
   posting-account=qvj7NA0AAABallzf-E3FtUCXEd65I-J8
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
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 Mar 24, 11:21 pm, rugx DOT  DOT  DOT  AT gmail DOT com wrote:
> On Mar 23, 1:37 pm, Gordon DOT Schumac DOT  DOT  DOT  AT seagate DOT com wrote:
>
> >   Send Binutils specific bug reports to <bug-binut DOT  DOT  DOT  AT gnu DOT org>.
> >   Send suggestions and bug reports concerning the DJGPP port
> >   to comp.os.msdos.djgpp or <d DOT  DOT  DOT  AT delorie DOT com>.
> >   If you are not sure if the failure is really a ed failure
> >   or a djgpp specific failure, report it here and *not* to
> >   <bug-binut DOT  DOT  DOT  AT gnu DOT org>.
>
> > --
> > Gordon Schumacher
>
> Why is BinUtils 2.17 so much bigger in .EXE size than 2.16.1?? I'm not
> trying to be a pedant, I'm just curious why it's 5x the size of the
> previous version (15 MB vs. 3 MB). Any obvious reason anyone know of?
>

Well, AFAIK, it's still got symbolic debug info in every .EXE (the
smallest is READELF.EXE at 588,307 bytes, which is still bigger than
any .EXE in 2.16.1). Running 'strip *.exe' seems to shrink them down
to almost the same as 2.16.1's total.

Gordon, maybe you should repackage / reupload the BNU217B.ZIP since I
don't think most users will be debugging these, and it'll spare
everyone's bandwidth in the long run.

Oh, and before I forget ... thanks a million for your hard work!   ;-)