Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 14:12:25 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: pavenis AT lanet DOT lv
cc: Laurynas Biveinis <lauras AT softhome DOT net>, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: gcc-3.0
In-Reply-To: <3B31FC26.1141.5D4208@localhost>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010621140830.9042J-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 pavenis AT lanet DOT lv wrote:

> > > after 'gpp -O2 hello.cc -o hello.exe' I'm getting the size of executable
> > > (with gcc-3.0) size 1182238 bytes, after stripping it - 257536 bytes and
> > > after compressing it with UPX 1.20 (option --best): 91068 bytes
> > 
> > What is the size of unstripped executable when libgcc.a is unstripped, as 
> > opposed to stripped libgcc.a?
> 
> gcc-3.0, both libgcc.a and libstdxx.a stripped:
> 	original: 858371	   stripped: 255488	packed with UPX: 91008

So it looks like the size of the program is not an important reason for 
stripping libgcc.a: these numbers show that only about 30% of the 
executable's size is due to the debugging info in both libstdc++ and 
libgcc combined.  That is, most of the bloat comes from the code 
generated by the compiler, not from the library debug info.

The size of the file libgcc.a is a more important argument.