X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        bh=0IPVhTDA+npOMSjhY+mV7ctBel5W2PTjzC9Rnf7eO84=;
        b=ePOj92L3qGBxhNKKsw7344tOAE7OR0FyFvGafQlCE+gSSfCyWhp+zY8RrOKmP7fH9y
         N4Hfg3uLu4NS1kVt0Ws6z2S68oScBe5t7OJYaunmRaby0IJ6vyWpG3mrsTAHdjBARNDi
         Adn7WW2vBuZWy+TB2XwZj5sPCxSpNQKC44T1jtuHlpXtxwUdHE7uKbe/z1FJy4jeLTjs
         c7AsJHwMn3AY9CJoLo9gSPbWuRhUkZJlBbXtqe41p8hhS/81XDEs59JbcdyBaloDFy1Y
         xPEkHYvW2ldWEZVBOe/MHjgIKRosPC/PgIK09Vqlp6VzEUr6WW5MuEPiLhNutYMeBbka
         0aWA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.224.114.145 with SMTP id e17mr46082592qaq.53.1400500631776;
 Mon, 19 May 2014 04:57:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <87eede45-ce02-4724-b8c3-edc4a753c25d@googlegroups.com>
References: <201404242126 DOT s3OLQHsS004032 AT delorie DOT com>
	<5869e34a-74a1-4a2d-a7be-2c12409b55f3 AT googlegroups DOT com>
	<40eb0e81-732e-4750-bfee-9f6dbd289143 AT googlegroups DOT com>
	<73f93cd2-a5b9-43f4-bd8a-1777af598a89 AT googlegroups DOT com>
	<5378E9BD DOT 7070202 AT iki DOT fi>
	<87eede45-ce02-4724-b8c3-edc4a753c25d AT googlegroups DOT com>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 19:57:11 +0800
Message-ID: <CANbeq3zMFCcmwATrxPbPBzuKw02xKw=mgsF-ixHLi4-CfO-vjw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: DJGPP port of GCC-4.8.2 (DJGPP v2.04 only)
From: Andrew Wu <andrewwu DOT tw AT gmail DOT com>
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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

2014-05-19 3:38 GMT+08:00 RayeR <glaux AT centrum DOT cz>:
>> What optimization level did You use? I do not think that size can be reliably compared unless optimization level is -Os (optimize for size).
>
> Well I checked again and I had used -O2.
> So I retested with -Os and got much more comparable result, still file is a bit bigger from 4.9.0:
> before strip+UPX: 265728B vs 266240B
> after strip+UPX: 120016B vs 120464B

Hi. If you are concerned about executable file size, you can check
this link for gcc code size optimizations :

https://software.intel.com/en-us/blogs/2013/01/17/x86-gcc-code-size-optimizations