Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 15:47:16 +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: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: gcc-3.0
In-Reply-To: <3B3204D5.28461.E7F80@localhost>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010621154630.10384A-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:

> > The size of the file libgcc.a is a more important argument.
> 
> If we're talking about size of binary archives then the change of total
> size is less than 10%. Original sizes:
> 
> G7730B   ZIP     1 618 945  21.06.01  13:29 g7730b.zip
> GCC30B   ZIP     2 305 071  21.06.01  13:29 gcc30b.zip
> GPP30B   ZIP     2 414 441  21.06.01  13:29 gpp30b.zip
> OBJC30B  ZIP     1 152 208  21.06.01  13:29 objc30b.zip
>          4 file(s)      7 490 665 bytes
> 
> The same after stripping debug info from libraries
> 
> G7730B   ZIP     1 571 842  21.06.01  14:20 g7730b.zip
> GCC30B   ZIP     2 235 735  21.06.01  14:20 gcc30b.zip
> GPP30B   ZIP     2 267 709  21.06.01  14:21 gpp30b.zip
> OBJC30B  ZIP     1 081 127  21.06.01  14:21 objc30b.zip
>          4 file(s)      7 156 413 bytes
> 
> Of course decrease of size of libraries is more significant:

Yes, I was thinking about the size of the libraries after installing 
them.