From:	"Deepblade" <deepblade AT geocities DOT com>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: 3k lines = 4 MEG!! EXE ?? Help
Date:	Sat, 24 Jan 1998 13:46:47 +0200
Organization:	GEM Internet Company (Pty) Ltd
Lines:	43
Message-ID:	<885719592.215815@diamond.gem.co.za>
References:	<34C4B1C1 DOT 51D2 AT netunlimited DOT net> <34C5716C DOT 541A AT cs DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	onyx.gem.co.za
Cache-Post-Path:	diamond.gem.co.za!unknown AT cpt5 DOT gem DOT co DOT za
Cache-Post-Path:	news.gem.co.za!unknown AT diamond DOT gem DOT co DOT za
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

>If you are using C++, then the answer is simple:  gcc builds static
>arrays into the executable when compiling a C++ program.  If you declare
>something like:
>
>static int global_array[1000][1000];
>
>All 4 megabytes of the array will be included in the executable file.
>See chapter 8.14 of the DJGPP FAQ for precise details and instructions
>on how to keep this from happening.


As I see it, prefixing a global array declaration with the word 'static'
stops gcc from building huge files.

take for example these files:

  // nostatic.cc
  char buf[1024][1024];
  int main() { }

and

  // static.cc
  static char buf[1024][1024];
  int main() { }

when compiled using:

  gcc -s nostatic.cc -o static
  gcc -s static.cc -o nostatic

gives me:

  nostatic.exe at 1051kb
  static.exe at 27kb

I've been using this for ages, and it has always worked for me.
Is it a bad idea?
I know I should probably use dynamic allocation, but I'm lazy ;-)

- Raw text -