Xref: news-dnh.mv.net comp.os.msdos.djgpp:99 Path: news-dnh.mv.net!mv!news.sprintlink.net!demon!chocolat.demon.co.uk!PS From: Paul Shirley Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: size of .EXE files Date: 3 Jun 1995 13:10:29 +0100 Organization: a loose end. Lines: 31 Sender: news AT newnews DOT demon DOT co DOT uk References: <3qne9p$rk3 AT nic DOT umass DOT edu> Reply-To: PS AT chocolat DOT demon DOT co DOT uk Nntp-Posting-Host: dispatch.demon.co.uk To: djgpp AT sun DOT soe DOT clarkson DOT edu Dj-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp In article <3qne9p$rk3 AT nic DOT umass DOT edu> apj AT twain DOT oit DOT umass DOT edu "ADAM P JENKINS" writes: ;)Jeff Vogel (Faculty) (jhvogel AT me DOT umn DOT edu) wrote: ;): I have recently intalled djgpp112, and switched from using Microsoft's ;): QuickC (I put it back in the box - gcc has a lot more features). I have ;): been a little disappointed, however, in the size of the coff or .EXE files ;): produced. They are, for the few programs I have compared, about 50% larger ;): than those produced by QuickC, and if I used Microsoft's /EXEPACK link ;): option, the difference is a factor of about 2. Note that this is just ;) comparing ;): coff files to QuickC executables. ;) ;): My question is this - is there an option I haven't found for producing smaller;): object/executables? I am not including debugging information, and have tried ;): optimizing, but so far I haven't changed the size much. I should also mention ;): that the programs I have tried are typically about 500 lines of code. Thanks ;): for any help. ;) ;): -- ;): Jeff Vogel ;): jhvogel AT me DOT umn DOT edu ;) ;)Try using the '-s' options when linking the objects to make the coff ;)file, or strip the coff file after linking with the strip command. ;)This helps some. Try the -fconserve-space flag as well... -- Paul Shirley: SemiProfessional Coffee & Chocolate Taster