Xref: news-dnh.mv.net comp.os.msdos.djgpp:1294
Path: news-dnh.mv.net!mv!news.sprintlink.net!news.bluesky.net!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!oitnews.harvard.edu!news.sesqui.net!uuneo.neosoft.com!news!sandmann
From: Charles Sandmann <sandmann AT praline DOT no DOT NeoSoft DOT com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: ** Comparison between DJGPP V2 & WATCOM C V10 **
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 1995 11:03:01 CDT
Organization: NeoSoft Internet Services +1 713 968 5800
Lines: 12
References: <3vl892$4q AT news DOT irisa DOT fr>
Reply-To: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: praline.no.neosoft.com
To: djgpp AT sun DOT soe DOT clarkson DOT edu
Dj-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

>    First, why is there a difference of size between the two gcc outputs ?

Because you specified the profiling entry point.  The extra size is the 
profiling code.

>    Second, I am VERY distappointed by the difference of size between gcc and
>  wcc386... :(

If the 8K bytes really disappoints you that much, there are ways to decrease
the footprint by removing some functionality which "hello world" doesn't use.
And if you give me the money you sent Watcom, I'll give you the really 
good stuff ;-)