Mail Archives: pgcc/1999/06/17/16:06:30.1
On Wed, Jun 16, 1999 at 07:22:39AM -0500, JonMcK wrote:
>
> I read about binutils2.9.1 being needed for mmx, etc. so I decided to
> compile->install that. I wasn't sure what version I already had, turns out
> I think I had 2.9.1. Oddly, my compiled binutils files are huge! I didn't
> realize "larger" meant 10X larger! Anyways, this isn't the problem.
have you stripped them? debugging info tends to get huge. Also you might
want to compilöe them without exsception tables (-fno-exception).
> [jon AT blackhole Exe]$ ls -al /usr/bin/gprofold
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 95668 Apr 5 20:08 /usr/bin/gprofold
> [jon AT blackhole Exe]$ ls -al /usr/local/bin/gprof
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1045169 Jun 16 03:07 /usr/local/bin/gprof
Also maybe libbfd &c. was linked statically into the executables.
> I looked at all my options, trying to see if I just happened to change
> something, then I remember a directory where I compiled the old good
> version. I run that binary, and it's FAST, just like it was before! I then
> move that in a safe place and recompile with the EXACT same settings as that
> FAST one was compiled. I run it, and it's SLOW! I compare the binaries and
> they are DIFFERENT!
Then, with a 99.9% chance, the settings were different ;)
How many differences are there ("cmp -l file1 file2 | wc" will outpout a
measure for that).? If there are few only then maybe its an embedded date.
If the binaries are almost identical (<10 differences or so) then cache
colouring effects might take place.
> 1) WHAT THE HECK did I do? Could binutils do this?
Improbable, however, if the only thing you changed were binutils I guess
that was it. Can you try with the old binutils?
--
-----==- |
----==-- _ |
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +--
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg AT goof DOT com |e|
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+
The choice of a GNU generation |
|
- Raw text -