Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!comp.vuw.ac.nz!lloyd From: L.Parkes@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Lloyd Parkes) Newsgroups: comp.os.minix Subject: Re: Compiler comparisons (object code) Message-ID: Date: 12 Dec 90 17:03:14 GMT References: <1640@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> Sender: news@comp.vuw.ac.nz (News Admin) Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Victoria Uni. of Wellington, NZ. Lines: 36 Nntp-Posting-Host: circa.comp.vuw.ac.nz In-Reply-To: nall@sun8.scri.fsu.edu's message of 11 Dec 90 16:33:09 GMT In article <1640@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> nall@sun8.scri.fsu.edu (John Nall) writes: Running both standard Minix 1.5.10 and Minix-386 (on different partitions), ... Huh. Nice for some. :-) OBJECT OBJECT OBJECT OBJECT OBJECT PROGRAM SIZE SIZE SIZE SIZE NAME (ACK) (ANSI) (BCC) (GCC) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- dosread 10888 13920 14740 32800 libpack 4400 7912 11020 28704 libupack 1908 2756 2884 22560 readclock 5948 9232 8924 22560 term 4390 6328 5468 24608 -- So what?? (Said in the nicest possible way). This probably means that gcc includes a hell of a lot more libraries than the other compilers. It appears to be quite consistent about it as well. This can usually be fixed much easier than abominable code generation for instance. I have also heard reports that gcc on a sequent produces binaries 1/3 smaller than the system compiler. By the way you did strip the binaries didn't you. I wouldn't put it past gcc to generate _lots_ of symbolic information. Lloyd p.s. I am a bit of a gcc fan -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Lloyd Parkes | The stereotypical young adult male in New lloyd@comp.vuw.ac.nz | Zealand is a good reason for being lesbian. ------------------------------------------------------------------------