From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Large .exe size
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 13:14:31 +0200
Organization: NetVision LTD.
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.970303131416.9009F-100000@is>
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 970302131811 DOT 6609L-100000 AT is> <5fcqps$pts$1 AT fep4 DOT clear DOT net DOT nz>
NNTP-Posting-Host: is.elta.co.il
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
In-Reply-To: <5fcqps$pts$1@fep4.clear.net.nz>
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp


On Sun, 2 Mar 1997, Malcolm Taylor wrote:

> Is there any non-standard way of reducing the startup code overhead?
> (ie after declaring null globbing funcs etc.)

You mean, beyond what's explained in section 8.15 of the FAQ?  I don't
think you can do that, short of writing your own stub and startup
code.  I don't believe there's much slack in there, since DJ Delorie
actually tried to make it as small as he could during v2 development.
But you can always try to do better ;-).

> I am interested in
> making a certain exe as small as humanely possible, and was wondering
> what parts of the library source to attack for example.

Why does it bother you so much?  You cannot make it too small without
losing important features (disabling parts of startup code as the FAQ
explains is already painful in almost every real-world program).  For
more extensive code-slashing you will have to write your program in
assembly, AFAIK.