* size of executable
@ 2002-09-04 14:25 Chris Croswhite
2002-09-05 5:50 ` Eljay Love-Jensen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Chris Croswhite @ 2002-09-04 14:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-help
Hello,
Could someone explain to me why the size of my executable increased by
25% when I compiled with 3.2 versus 2.953? This is a major bummer.
Also, with the increased size, I have not seen any performance
increase. Is there something I am missing?
Thank you,
Chris
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: size of executable
@ 2002-09-05 9:13 Keen Wayne A Contr AFRL/MNGG
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Keen Wayne A Contr AFRL/MNGG @ 2002-09-05 9:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 'gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org'
Also note that (in my experience), I did not start to see performance
improvements on the PC (particularly P4)
until I started doing processor specific optimizations (eg. -mcpu=pentium4).
When I got my act together with options, I started getting ~15% improvement.
Running strip made things almost
as small, but no performance improvement came from it....at leasrt for us.
Your experience may differ....
Wayne Keen
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2002-09-05 16:13 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2002-09-04 14:25 size of executable Chris Croswhite
2002-09-05 5:50 ` Eljay Love-Jensen
2002-09-05 9:13 Keen Wayne A Contr AFRL/MNGG
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).