X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f In-Reply-To: <200703250505.l2P552fv006207@delorie.com> Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: DJGPP port of Binutils 2.17 uploaded To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0.2 September 26, 2006 Message-ID: From: Gordon DOT Schumacher AT seagate DOT com Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:48:42 -0600 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on SV-GW1/Seagate Internet(Release 7.0.1 HF29|March 07, 2006) at 03/26/2007 08:48:46 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Proofpoint-FWRule: outbound2 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=4.65.5502:2.3.11,1.2.37,4.0.164 definitions=2007-03-26_06:2007-03-24,2007-03-26,2007-03-26 signatures=0 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 rugxulo AT gmail DOT com wrote on 24 Mar 2007 21:41:31 -0700: # > 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. D'oh! :-S Sorry 'bout that, I even noticed the increase but as usual was trying to do too many things at once... # 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. Absolutely. I'm going to end up repackaging most of the stuff I've done already due to little things like this - it's not too big a deal. # Oh, and before I forget ... thanks a million for your hard work! ;-) No problem - I've been getting good usage out of the DJGPP tools for some years now; putting some back seems only fair.