Re: Size Weirdness in Snapshots

[David Starner <dstarner98 at aasaa dot ofe dot org>]

Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> 
>   In message <36C9F119.B3FEED52@aasaa.ofe.org>you write:
>   > Okay. I looked at all the libraries I could find that would be linked
>   > into my program, and they were all much larger than my program. As it
>   > appears that no one else really cares about this, and I'm not
>   > knowledgable enough to study it, I'll let it drop.
> What makes you think people don't care.  They certainly do.  However, you
> haven't really provided us with anything which would allow us to help you.

What more do you need than g++ -v, the command line used, and the
program? (Not trying to be sarcastic, but I don't know what you're
looking for.)
> 
> As I mentioned, when you see a size increase like this, it typically comes
> from debugging symbols, eh overhead or linking statically or dynamically.
> 
> Check those things.  Note that the increases may come from the libraries
> you link against, not necessarily the code you compile for your application.
Which libraries? The code didn't explicitly link against any libraries,
so I would assume it would only link against libgcc, libc and libstdc++.
It should link against the same libc, so...

Well, I downloaded egcs 1.1.1 and installed that as an alternate
compiler. It produced about the same size program as the most recent
snapshot. Investigating further, the egcs 1.1.1 that came with Debian is
heavily hacked, including H.J. Lu's Linux patches, and a number of other
patches. Since the difference is not between straight Egcs 1.1.1 and a
snapshot, it's too much work for me to bother with. 

-- 
The irony is, there ARE drugs that ENHANCE it. This says something
profound about either science or medicine or people or muppets or all
four. - S. John Ross