Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 10:29:49 +0200 (WET)
From: Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT lanet DOT lv>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
cc: Jeff Williams <jeffw AT darwin DOT sfbr DOT org>, djgpp AT delorie DOT com,
        root AT darkstar DOT grendel DOT net
Subject: Re: [WANTED]Old GCC/GXX's
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000402083543.8988G-100000@is>
Message-ID: <Pine.A41.4.05.10004031022130.47140-100000@ieva05.lanet.lv>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk



On Sun, 2 Apr 2000, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> 
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2000, Jeff Williams wrote:
> 
> > As was also pointed out, 2.7.x has the advantage of being rather compact:
> > 
> > gcc2952b.zip unzips to 60 files and 5261021 bytes
> > gcc2721b.zip unzips to 37 files and 2725475 bytes
> 
> GCC 2.9X is distributed unstripped.  If your disk space is at premioum, 
> you can strip the executables and cut their size in half.


Yes You can get some space by stripping binaries included
with binary archives of gcc-2.95.2 (Perhaps about 10-30%). You can get
even more by compressing them with UPX (or DJP)

The reason why I didn't strip binaries was to provide user to possibility 
to use symify on binaries if they crashes due to some reason (at least
user can do that with original binary which crashed, instead of forcing us
to guess which update he/she had)

Andris