This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Huge Increase in Unstripped Executable Size G++ 2.95 to 3.2
- From: Jim Wilson <wilson at tuliptree dot org>
- To: Toon Moene <toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl>
- Cc: Andi Kleen <ak at suse dot de>, Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, nabeel at netzero dot com
- Date: 28 Feb 2003 22:54:55 -0500
- Subject: Re: Huge Increase in Unstripped Executable Size G++ 2.95 to 3.2
- References: <20030227.154544.18888.253032@webmail06.lax.untd.com.suse.lists.egcs> <3E5ED96F.9090902@tuliptree.org.suse.lists.egcs> <p73ptpc7rjt.fsf@amdsimf.suse.de> <jeisv4y3hy.fsf@sykes.suse.de> <20030228130640.GA16376@wotan.suse.de> <20030 228152913.GA23295@nevyn.them.org> <20030228153757.GB17745@wotan.suse.de><1046448467.999.29.camel@leaf.tuliptree.org> <3E5FBCEF.7050203@moene.indiv.nluug.nl>
On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 14:47, Toon Moene wrote:
> How would your scheme work in this case ?
It isn't my scheme. I don't know the details of how it works.
If you are using static libraries (archives), then I think it would work
fine, since the archives just contain the object files with the original
debug info.
Shared libraries are a different matter. The debug info would have to
be in the shared library, or you would have to keep the original
objects. Either way there doesn't seem to be much benefit here for
shared libraries.
Jim