Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 08:35:21 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Laurynas Biveinis <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Read Me Third: A Short FAQ List (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <3812E5F5.51F60852@softhome.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.991026083458.17216J-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Sun, 24 Oct 1999, Laurynas Biveinis wrote:

> > Is this the reason that the binary is now 20KB larger?  I didn't know the
> > v2.03 library is so much more bloated.  Perhaps you could look into this.
> 
> The first binary was compiled with NO_ZIPINFO enabled, that reduces the
> size of binary by skipping ZipInfo features, and the second one was 
> without that define. NO_ZIPINFO saves about 10 KB in DJP-compressed binary.
> Is it worth defining again ?

I don't think so.  I was just curious how come the binary got bloated
so much.  Thanks for explaining.