This is the mail archive of the
gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Code Bloat using GCC 3.2 on Linux
- From: Gaurav Jain <gaurav dot anywhere at gmail dot com>
- To: gcc-help at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 20:58:05 +0530
- Subject: Re: Code Bloat using GCC 3.2 on Linux
- References: <42f6506e041215034463e2c9b@mail.gmail.com> <20041215132426.78ca7b5e@zeta.comsys.se> <42f6506e04121506105903a2e2@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.0.14.2.20041215081802.0207dbd8@iplan-mn.corp.adobe.com>
- Reply-to: Gaurav Jain <gaurav dot anywhere at gmail dot com>
Hi Eljay,
What's more important for me is the size on disk. I want a small file
that can be easy to download.
I have already tried the "strip" command, and the relative figures I
gave were after stripping the binaries.
-Gaurav
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 08:22:02 -0600, Eljay Love-Jensen <eljay@adobe.com> wrote:
> Hi Guarav,
>
> Did you do the "strip" command on the output binary?
>
> strip myexecutable
>
> That might cut out 10%.
>
> When you are talking about the "bloat", are you speaking about the file, or
> of the memory footprint of the program when running?
>
> If you are speaking of the file, that does not necessarily correspond to
> "bloat" in memory. The Linux executable file may be 100 KB, and the memory
> footprint (code + data) may be 200 KB. The Windows executable file may be
> 50 KB and the memory footprint (code + data) may be 10 MB.
>
> I'm just trying to understand what you consider "bloat". Is it important
> that the file be small, or that the running memory footprint be small?
>
> --Eljay
>
>