[Bug libgcc/98395] New: libgcc_s.so.1 almost 10x bigger in gcc-10.2 than gcc-9.2

[Bug libgcc/98395] New: libgcc_s.so.1 almost 10x bigger in gcc-10.2 than gcc-9.2

[john.frankish at outlook dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98395

            Bug ID: 98395
           Summary: libgcc_s.so.1 almost 10x bigger in gcc-10.2 than
                    gcc-9.2
           Product: gcc
           Version: 10.2.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: libgcc
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: john.frankish at outlook dot com
  Target Milestone: ---

The libgcc_s.so.1 library built with gcc-10.2 is 580kb, whereas the same
library built with gcc-9.2 is 75kb.

Both were built on an x86_64 system with:

CC="gcc -mtune=generic -Os -pipe" CXX="g++ -mtune=generic -Os -pipe"
../configure --prefix=/usr/local --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-multilib
--disable-bootstrap --with-system-zlib --libexecdir=/usr/local/lib

The almost ten-fold increase in size would seem to indicate something is wrong,
but what?

[Bug libgcc/98395] libgcc_s.so.1 almost 10x bigger in gcc-10.2 than gcc-9.2

[schwab@linux-m68k.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98395

--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> ---
What does size tell?

[Bug libgcc/98395] libgcc_s.so.1 almost 10x bigger in gcc-10.2 than gcc-9.2

[john.frankish at outlook dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98395

--- Comment #2 from john.frankish at outlook dot com ---
Something significant must have changed, or be wrong, for such a big increase
in size

[Bug libgcc/98395] libgcc_s.so.1 almost 10x bigger in gcc-10.2 than gcc-9.2

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98395

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Most likely one is stripped and the other is not.
I didn't build with -Os, but the 9.x to 10.x difference is fairly small:
gcc 9 libgcc]$ size libgcc_s.so.1 
   text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
  90562     992     688   92242   16852 libgcc_s.so.1
gcc 10 libgcc]$ size libgcc_s.so.1 
   text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
  92530     992     680   94202   16ffa libgcc_s.so.1

[Bug libgcc/98395] libgcc_s.so.1 almost 10x bigger in gcc-10.2 than gcc-9.2

[john.frankish at outlook dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98395

--- Comment #4 from john.frankish at outlook dot com ---
Both are stripped and all the other gcc libs are of comparable size between
gcc-9.2 and gcc-10.2.

I'll compile with -O2 instead of -Os in the next couple of days to see if that
makes a difference.

[Bug libgcc/98395] libgcc_s.so.1 almost 10x bigger in gcc-10.2 than gcc-9.2

[marxin at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98395

Martin Liška <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |marxin at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I see on openSUSE Tumbleweed the following:

$ du -hs /usr/lib64/gcc/x86_64-suse-linux/9/libgcc.a
7.3M    /usr/lib64/gcc/x86_64-suse-linux/9/libgcc.a
$ du -hs /usr/lib64/gcc/x86_64-suse-linux/10/libgcc.a
5.3M    /usr/lib64/gcc/x86_64-suse-linux/10/libgcc.a

[Bug libgcc/98395] libgcc_s.so.1 almost 10x bigger in gcc-10.2 than gcc-9.2

[john.frankish at outlook dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98395

john.frankish at outlook dot com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Resolution|---                         |INVALID
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED

--- Comment #6 from john.frankish at outlook dot com ---
compiling with -O2 and -Os looks OK - I must have made a mistake somewhere.