Message-ID: <3AEC9F4C.A1DB2FA@caresystems.com.au>
From: leon <leon AT caresystems DOT com DOT au>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: gcc for djgpp vs borland c compiler
References: <9cg46n$kk5$1 AT sunlight DOT pku DOT edu DOT cn>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 17
NNTP-Posting-Host: kalima.ozemail.com.au
X-Trace: ozemail.com.au 988586185 203.108.63.158 (Mon, 30 Apr 2001 09:16:25 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 09:16:25 EST
Organization: OzEmail Ltd, Australia
Distribution: world
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 09:10:04 +1000
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

further, some compilers make it look as if the created app is small,
only because they requier a runtime ditribution dll of theirs to
accompany exe file on any computer it is intended for running.

Danny wrote:
> 
> Hi, THere.
> 
> I have got both gcc for djgpp and borland C compiler (bcc32). I compared
> them on a simple 'hello world' C code. I found gcc made a EXE with size of
> 107,516bytes, while bcc32 generated a EXE with size of 52,736bytes.
> 
> How come they are so different?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Dan