This is the mail archive of the gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

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: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 10:33:45 +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> <42f6506e0412150728558fe41b@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.0.14.2.20041215094647.020cf100@iplan-mn.corp.adobe.com>
Reply-to: Gaurav Jain <gaurav dot anywhere at gmail dot com>

Hi,

I have used bzip2 for the Linux version and zip for the Windows
version, and *after* compression, the relative sizes are still almost
2::1.

I have already tried using compression methods, but I can't go for
anything than bzip2 at most, as it's freely available.  What I really
wanted to resolve was the core problem, which seems to be the larger
C++ binaries, rather than the compression method.

Thanks,
-Gaurav

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 09:47:43 -0600, Eljay Love-Jensen <eljay@adobe.com> wrote:
> Hi Guarav,
> 
> >What's more important for me is the size on disk.  I want a small file
> that can be easy to download.
> 
> What are the sizes of the Windows versus Linux files after running them
> through zip or bzip2?
> 
> --Eljay
> 
>

References:
- Code Bloat using GCC 3.2 on Linux
  - From: Gaurav Jain
- Re: Code Bloat using GCC 3.2 on Linux
  - From: Gaurav Jain
- Re: Code Bloat using GCC 3.2 on Linux
  - From: Gaurav Jain

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]