Date:	Wed, 16 Aug 1995 06:29:49 -0400
From:	dj (DJ Delorie)
To:	alh AT engr DOT engr DOT uark DOT edu
Cc:	djgpp AT sun DOT soe DOT clarkson DOT edu
Subject:	Re: ** Comparison between DJGPP V2 & WATCOM C V10 **

> First of all, I'm assuming based on your reference to V3, that you 
> performed this compile test using DJGPP V2.0.  In your watcom examples 
> you failed to mention the size of the required DOS extender, which I 
> might add is well over 100k, while the gcc bin is extender free.

go32 used to take 130K, so V2 is quite an improvement, with a
footprint of about 17k of dos memory per invokation (plus some initial
DPMI host memory, if needed by your dpmi host).

> Second, this is a forum for the discussion of development of DJGPP.  If 
> you have anything to add that is not relevant to the topic, please don't 
> post it here.

No, development *with* djgpp, not just development *of* djgpp.  The
posting in question is acceptable.

> Third, I noticed in your sig, the reference to student... which I think 
> is very appropriate.  If you have the arrogance to bash compilers based 
> on how big their hello worlds are, then you obviously need to do some 
> more studying.

Many of the DJGPP developers are students.  A lot of the optimization
work in GCC itself is for making the executables smaller, which often
results in faster execution.  Besides, comments like these are not
relevent to using djgpp and thus are not acceptable on this group.

Posts about the size of hello.exe are acceptable (although I
personally could do without them).  Posts explaining *why* the size of
hello.exe is what it is, or why it's irrelevent, are acceptable.
Posts telling people to bug off because they're worried about the size
of hello.exe are part of the "noise" that we can do without.  Please?

Thanks,
DJ

- Raw text -