MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <52754597.9000204@iki.fi>
References: <201310162005 DOT r9GK5npk027905 AT delorie DOT com>
	<52754597 DOT 9000204 AT iki DOT fi>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 16:39:03 -0600
Message-ID: <CAA-ihx-X=JWmWgGTiErKGbaZS+C5i8tTfu4fpTbUoN9M_cFccw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: DJGPP port of GCC-4.8.2 (DJGPP v2.04 only)
From: Rugxulo <rugxulo AT gmail DOT com>
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Andris Pavenis <andris DOT pavenis AT iki DOT fi> wrote:
> On 10/16/2013 10:54 PM, Andris Pavenis wrote:
>>
>> This is announcement of DJGPP port of GCC-4.8.2
>
> There are several problems with this port:
>
> 2) some executables in RPM packages were not stripped, so
> unnecessarily bloating packages were generated
>
> I'll upload updated build after testing when I'll have it.

Thanks for your efforts. However, I don't understand the difference.

While the checksums do differ, the gcc482b.zip size is almost the
exact same. Ahhh, maybe you meant inside the .rpm only, *those*
executables were not stripped properly?

As an aside, I do think there are some files that don't need to be
included in releases. Correct me if wrong, but I have absolutely no
idea what these do (if anything):

gcc-ar.exe, gcc-nm.exe, gcc-ranlib.exe, lto-wrapper.exe

Just checking some of my older .ZIPs, it seems (for example)
gcc-ar.exe was included in gcc473b.zip but not gcc463b.zip (or older).

Well, I'm also pretty sure DJGPP doesn't support LTO. At least that's
what I recall (not that I need nor want it), so at least
lto-wrapper.exe could "probably" be removed.