X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
Message-ID: <4608A73C.3090602@iki.fi>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:10:20 +0300
From: Andris Pavenis <andris DOT pavenis AT iki DOT fi>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0b2 (X11/20070116)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Gordon DOT Schumacher AT seagate DOT com
Cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: DJGPP port of Binutils 2.17 uploaded
References: <OFFEC632FB DOT 2B028844-ON872572AA DOT 005688B4-872572AA DOT 0056DD79 AT seagate DOT com>
In-Reply-To: <OFFEC632FB.2B028844-ON872572AA.005688B4-872572AA.0056DD79@seagate.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Gordon DOT Schumacher AT seagate DOT com kirjoitti:
> 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.

Additionally You may decide compress them with UPX 
(http://upx.sourceforge.net).

UPX versions 1.2-X had problems with DJGPP, but that is no more so for 
2.0.X.