From: "S. Emami" Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp References: <9cg46n$kk5$1 AT sunlight DOT pku DOT edu DOT cn> Subject: Re: gcc for djgpp vs borland c compiler Lines: 14 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.26.30.52 Message-ID: <3aed4b14@dnews.tpgi.com.au> X-Original-Trace: 30 Apr 2001 21:23:00 +1000, 203.26.30.52 Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 20:58:41 +1000 NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.12.160.33 X-Complaints-To: abuse AT telstra DOT net X-Trace: nsw.nnrp.telstra.net 988628081 203.12.160.33 (Mon, 30 Apr 2001 20:54:41 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 20:54:41 EST Organization: Customer of Telstra Big Pond Direct To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Its all about how much of an unused library is included in your executable. You can write an assembly language program to print "Hello World!" in about about 20 bytes, so it shouldn't suprise you that one C compiler makes it 100,000 bytes and another makes it 50,000 bytes, if it only needs about 20 bytes! If you wrote a large program, the differences would change, hopefully all becoming quite similiar. by Shervin Emami http://www.geocities.com/emami_s/Draw3D.html http://www.geocities.com/emami_s/assembly.html