Message-Id: <m0yuiRZ-000S41C@inti.gov.ar>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <salvador AT natacha DOT inti DOT gov DOT ar>
From: "Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET)" <salvador AT inti DOT gov DOT ar>
Organization: INTI
To: Endlisnis <s257m AT unb DOT ca>, djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 16:10:32 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: executable size under DJGPP
In-reply-to: <Pine.SOL.3.96.980710150036.7738B-100000@sol.sun.csd.unb.ca>
Precedence: bulk

Endlisnis <s257m AT unb DOT ca> wrote:

> 	I am just wondering what the expected size ratio is between a
> program compiled under a 16-bit compiler (like BC++3.1) and DJGPP.  I
> remember reading a while ago somebody saying that only 18k was linked into
> every DJGPP file. (I may have the wrong number)  I tried compiling:
> 
> void main(){}
> 
> 	And it came out as 67k. 

Try using -s to strip the debug symbols.

>  I tried using <fstream.h>
> #include<fstream.h>
> 
> void main()
> {
>  fstream a("test", ios::out|ios::binary);
>  a << "Hello";
>  }
> 
> 	And it ended up 202k.  From what I remember of BC++v3.1 those
> programs would have compiled to 5k & 29k. 

Again try -s. Additionally I must admit that the C++ libraries are 
bloated.

> Should I expect 10:1 ratios to
> take care of Protected mode issues?

No in large projects. Small programs aren't good for such a 
comparisson. Take a look to the FAQ, Eli spend a  lot of time 
explaining this topics!

SET
------------------------------------ 0 --------------------------------
Visit my home page: http://set-soft.home.ml.org/
or
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Vista/6552/
Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET). (Electronics Engineer)
Alternative e-mail: set-soft AT usa DOT net set AT computer DOT org
ICQ: 2951574
Address: Curapaligue 2124, Caseros, 3 de Febrero
Buenos Aires, (1678), ARGENTINA
TE: +(541) 759 0013