[lkml]   [1998]   [Oct]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: My thoughts on egcs+2.2 (do you care??)

> > Well, since we are talking about egcs and gcc.. does anyone have an idea
> > of the reason for the size increase in executables on IA?
> > int main() {return 0;} (stripped)
> > gcc 2146 bytes
> > gcc 2.8.1 6168 bytes
> > ecc 1.1 8752 bytes

> Are the collected results with the same libs? Try with -fno-exceptions.

Yes, it's always -fno-exceptions makes NO difference as I
would expect for C executables. And hm, yes, it has to be linking related
since object file sizes are almost the same (modulo .comment section).

The additional size comes from libgcc.c, more precisely from frame.o and
two things use frame.o afaiks: exception handling and dwarf2 unwinding..
but is dwarf2 unwinding needed for C?

At any rate, I ended up with two libgcc.c: one for C++ (with unwinding)
and the other for C (without unwinding) and now the improvement in the
final size is noticeable: 2888 bytes (ecc).

____/| Ragnar Hojland ( Fingerprint 94C4B
\ o.O| 2F0D27DE025BE2302C
=(_)= "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer for 104B78C56 B72F0822
U chaos and madness await thee at its end." hkp://

.. Now to find out where did nethack and omega go

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:45    [W:0.030 / U:7.856 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site