Xref: news-dnh.mv.net comp.os.msdos.djgpp:1528
Path: news-dnh.mv.net!mv!news.sprintlink.net!news.inc.net!news.moneng.mei.com!news.ecn.bgu.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!news.ksu.ksu.edu!bubba.ucc.okstate.edu!wizard.uark.edu!engr.engr.uark.edu!alh
From: ALAN L HIGHTOWER <alh AT engr DOT engr DOT uark DOT edu>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: ** Comparison between DJGPP V2 & WATCOM C V10 **
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 1995 22:36:59 -0500
Organization: University of Arkansas
Lines: 30
Nntp-Posting-Host: engr.engr.uark.edu
To: djgpp AT sun DOT soe DOT clarkson DOT edu
Dj-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp



On 1 Aug 1995, Erwann Corvellec wrote:

> [ stupid post reguarding file sizes in hello world programs. ]

>    100352 bytes for this little piece of code (150Ko with all symbols !) !
>    I laughed a lot seeing that last night... ;D
>    I know you're going to tell me that the whole C++ library is included, but
>  3 times larger than the wpp386 it's far too much !
>    
>    Well, DJ I think I'll wait until V3 comes out ! *<:oD

First of all, I'm assuming based on your reference to V3, that you 
performed this compile test using DJGPP V2.0.  In your watcom examples 
you failed to mention the size of the required DOS extender, which I 
might add is well over 100k, while the gcc bin is extender free.

Second, this is a forum for the discussion of development of DJGPP.  If 
you have anything to add that is not relevant to the topic, please don't 
post it here.

Third, I noticed in your sig, the reference to student... which I think 
is very appropriate.  If you have the arrogance to bash compilers based 
on how big their hello worlds are, then you obviously need to do some 
more studying.

Alan