From:	Nate Eldredge <neldredge AT hmc DOT edu>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: DJGPP and Borland's compiler generated code size
Date:	11 Nov 2000 15:40:18 -0800
Organization:	InterWorld Communications
Lines:	30
Sender:	nate AT mercury DOT st DOT hmc DOT edu
Message-ID:	<83u29egjrx.fsf@mercury.st.hmc.edu>
References:	<madoka-6C398A DOT 16411011112000 AT news DOT supernews DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	mercury.st.hmc.edu
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Trace:	nntp1.interworld.net 973986018 92762 134.173.57.219 (11 Nov 2000 23:40:18 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:	usenet AT news DOT interworld DOT net
NNTP-Posting-Date:	Sat, 11 Nov 2000 23:40:18 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent:	Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) Emacs/20.5
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Julian Hsiao <madoka AT novastar DOT com> writes:

> Hi,
> 
> I'm currently taking a programming class and being short on budget, uses 
> DJGPP and Borland's free compiler and XEmacs for assignments.  The 
> reason I uses both compilers is because I try to avoid using certain 
> constructs that only GCC or Borland provides (well, I guess the only way 
> to completely avoid that is to code while reading the C++ specs paper, 
> but I'll pass on that...).
> 
> Either one worked quite well for my purpose (except for some reason, 
> violating the const declaration only results in a warning in both 
> compilers, but an error in CW, which is what my class uses), but I 
> noticed that DJGPP's generated binary size is considerably larger than 
> that of Borland compiler.  With DJGPP, I pretty much always get ~200K 
> binaries while with Borland's compiler I get ~40K binaries.
> 
> Being a fairly introductory class, most of the assignments are trivial 
> (implement a priority queue using a linked list, etc.), and no STL is 
> used.  I turn on optimization when compiling with both compilers.
> 
> Can someone please explain why this is the case?

See FAQ section 8.13.

-- 

Nate Eldredge
neldredge AT hmc DOT edu

- Raw text -