From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7306 invoked by alias); 11 Sep 2002 23:16:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-help-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 7294 invoked from network); 11 Sep 2002 23:15:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO keck.hawaii.edu) (128.171.96.129) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 11 Sep 2002 23:15:59 -0000 Received: from kalani.keck.hawaii.edu (kalani [128.171.96.186]) by keck.hawaii.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA18758; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 13:15:58 -1000 (HST) Received: by kalani.keck.hawaii.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-4.1) id NAA03585; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 13:15:58 -1000 (HST) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 16:16:00 -0000 From: pkurpis@keck.hawaii.edu (Peter Kurpis) Message-Id: <200209112315.NAA03585@kalani.keck.hawaii.edu> To: ccroswhite@get2chip.com Subject: Re: help with shriking binary size Cc: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00089.txt.bz2 > From gcc-help-return-10062-pkurpis=keck.hawaii.edu@gcc.gnu.org Wed Sep 11 13:06:35 2002 > I need some help. I have been running some comparisons with 2.95.3 and > 3.2 and found that with the same machine and same source code, 3.2 > produces code that is larger by 25%-51% larger with no run time > improvement (tested across several executables and test cases). Is > there a way to shrink the size down to the same level as 2.95.3? Here > are several cases: > > 2.95.3 3.2 > (-g):30560264 6246679(+51%) > (-O):8889831 11198086(+26%) > (-O2):8893383 11458534(+29%) > (-O3):9009271 11252525(+25%) Are these just binary sizes from ls , or segment sizes from size ? I am not an expert, but this could be just the symbol table getting larger. Also, you could try strip on the executables. Second, are you using the same optimization settings? This would be a factor, I would think...