From: cziwkga AT ulcc DOT ac DOT uk (Kevin Ashley)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: DJGPP v. gcc
Date: 28 Jan 1997 16:25:50 GMT
Organization: University of London Computer Centre
Lines: 25
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <5cl9ae$970@calypso.ulcc.ac.uk>
References: <5cj9it$ho8$1 AT spasmolytic DOT openix DOT com>
Reply-To: k DOT ashley AT ulcc DOT ac DOT uk
NNTP-Posting-Host: silver-e.ulcc.ac.uk
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp


In article <5cj9it$ho8$1 AT spasmolytic DOT openix DOT com>, jkapleau AT openix DOT com (Jonathan Kapleau) writes:
|>Maybe this is a stupid question, but how come when I compile a simple
|>program (i.e. "Hello, World!") using DJGPP on my pc using only the
|><stdio.h> header file it compiles to something like 80k, but when I
|>compile it using gcc under Linux the same program compiles to about 4k.
|>What gives?

Under DOS, the standard libraries have to do a fair amount of work that
is done by the shell and/or operating system under any Unix variant
such as Linux. This includes the small amount of code to detect whether
DPMI services are present, and load CWSDPMI if they aren't, wild-card
expansion in the shell command line, dealing with long/indirect argument
passing (only significant if program is invoked from another DJGPP
or compliant application) and others I can't think of at the moment.

The stdio libraries also have to try harder to make DOS's I/O model
look more like what ANSI C says stdio should be like. It may also be
that Linux is able to save space by using shared libraries. Since I don't
use Linux, I don't know if that's the case. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Ashley                              K DOT Ashley AT Ulcc DOT ac DOT uk
Development Manager              http://www.ulcc.ac.uk/staff/Kevin+Ashley
University of London Computer Centre.      ...ukc!ncdlab!K.Ashley
                      This is not a signature