From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-wm1-x334.google.com (mail-wm1-x334.google.com
 [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::334])
 by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 770153858C2C
 for <gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>; Tue,  4 Jan 2022 12:12:53 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 770153858C2C
Received: by mail-wm1-x334.google.com with SMTP id b73so23109448wmd.0
 for <gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>; Tue, 04 Jan 2022 04:12:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20210112;
 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
 :message-id:subject:to:cc;
 bh=CSMMYGlUPxaH9pATepOE5D+3MwaG3ekxyMFUsavVfB0=;
 b=sdxdZRKXzNNaOok9zSGb22BU1R8FMsb3W6udcWjsp1D6ry6GOy9Fz3B9JbH48/OKtW
 hE4NoV2FI6glrcQIsOFVPBLsFPL7Oi95+3ln3n0XunCMENC2XKOIgROFv6a4/E0XuBuZ
 FiPotpyu0HztZdQ3/fEXnUZkxxZSyslOaA16bS7ev2PHCQ6iT0xG9QRI+T4OGLF+KYNO
 LRw+jMXlV0wKlMELZazA9WxfHv8SmbugLc7gEuj+Q5F5Wo8UYwAu0cF92vT9jONcYJue
 ePpqNL/wSNA9Tg+rfhUcleM3qo5HgYiLJJD9AiRsBUKJhrJLCUI90Q3ufBAU2UGaLg6E
 0q4A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531P/h9BT0s9IGHu+rWSHXPK3xhNjESEs9Y7JakqpQdXiAK2EnZM
 ANiga9hFV23aaKpUYXeNXLhV5muqx5ZcNoI/jWE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzPypPBthLz3FjM2c5/F1nOoAoppKXNd0Kh8sPltEWSonqIxAp2sO3279YREB0PCxPbsJiodPgUCdf0G03xTXQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:1e05:: with SMTP id
 ay5mr42368197wmb.131.1641298371462; 
 Tue, 04 Jan 2022 04:12:51 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <MW3PR18MB3675DED196E7FA7E19455E15804A9@MW3PR18MB3675.namprd18.prod.outlook.com>
 <SI2PR03MB5242E50151FFED82AB34DAD8FB4A9@SI2PR03MB5242.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAH6eHdRJtGDrG2RB6bCzEadDOOBsToLPJrQXqirEDKtOeLk-4A@mail.gmail.com>
 <SI2PR03MB52424F304B6A4DE6B7DEC49BFB4A9@SI2PR03MB5242.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <SI2PR03MB52424F304B6A4DE6B7DEC49BFB4A9@SI2PR03MB5242.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com>
From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2022 12:12:40 +0000
Message-ID: <CAH6eHdT9g5aMfrFr1FmLQfoVZ0FmO1aT0XtWTutA9+qR9fZL8A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Fw: binary size
To: Ming Cheng <chengm349@hotmail.com>
Cc: gcc-help <gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED,
 DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,
 SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on
 server2.sourceware.org
X-BeenThere: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-help mailing list <gcc-help.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-help>,
 <mailto:gcc-help-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-help/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-help-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-help>,
 <mailto:gcc-help-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2022 12:12:54 -0000

On Tue, 4 Jan 2022 at 11:42, Ming Cheng <chengm349@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Jonathan,
> I just pasted a lib. It's applicable to binary. I am wondering whether there is a way to generate smaller binary by ver 10.2.1 close to 7.3.1? Would bigger size binary slower ?

It depends why it's bigger. As I said, it's probably due to debug
info, which doesn't affect performance at all. Using 'ls' to check the
size is not helpful, because it doesn't tell you anything about the
size of the executable code in the binary. Use 'size' to do that. Even
if that shows the code is bigger, that doesn't mean it's going to be
slower. The only way to tell if it's slower is to measure if it's
slower.

tl;dr it depends.