Xref: news2.mv.net comp.os.msdos.djgpp:2196
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Exe size
Message-ID: <31595fc0.4803520@wvnvm.wvnet.edu>
From: u6ed4 AT wvnvm DOT wvnet DOT edu (bonni mierzejewska)
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 12:43:14 -0500
Reply-To: u6ed4 AT wvnvm DOT wvnet DOT edu
References: <9603261706 DOT AA08184 AT TINA DOT DEI DOT UNIPD DOT IT>
Organization: Kelly's Creek Homestead
Nntp-Posting-Host: 129.71.4.155
Lines: 32
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

On Tue, 26 Mar 1996 17:06:23 GMT, gelido AT dei DOT unipd DOT it wrote:

>Hi DJs,
>	which is the inline GCC options to make the smaller .exe ?
>I use 'GCC -s -O3' but the output file is 2-3 times bigger than BCC.
>Is this what I have to pay for 32 bit ?
>
>There is an EXE-packer that works with  DJ exe ?

I am very new to DJGPP, but I've done some playing around, comparing BC++
and gcc.  You might want to compare the results of compiling with *bcc32*
and gcc, since they are more comparable.  bcc32 always produces bigger
..exe's than bcc, even with the optimizations for size turned on.  gcc
*still* produces larger .exe files than bcc32, but it's more on the order
of 10%, which isn't too bad.

I'm too new to DOS to know why a programme compiled with a 32-bit compiler
is always bigger than the same programme compiled with a 16-bit compiler.
Anybody know?  Does it have something to do with DOS addressing?  The
extra bytes required to store 32-bit addresses?  The extra stuff required
to run a 32-bit programme in a 16-bit DOS environment?  (That reminds me,
I've been wanting to go into DOS setup and see what happens if I turn on
32-bit addressing...)

I would also like an answer to the question of an EXE-packer for DJGPP.

bonni
coming soon - 1996 IF Competition entry
__   __
IC | XC  |   bonni mierzejewska "The Lone Quilter"
---+---  |         u6ed4 AT wvnvm DOT wvnet DOT edu
NI | KA  | Kelly's Creek Homestead, Maidsville, WV