Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!rsiatl!nanovx!msa3b!kevin
From: kevin@msa3b.UUCP (Kevin P. Kleinfelter)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms.programmer
Subject: Re: Borland C++ vs Microsoft C 5.10
Keywords: windows borland microsoft
Message-ID: <1573@msa3b.UUCP>
Date: 15 Mar 91 12:31:09 GMT
References: <350@intertel.UUCP>
Organization: Dun and Bradstreet Software, Inc., Atlanta, GA
Lines: 24

boyd_m@intertel.UUCP (Mark Boyd) writes:

>The company I work at has a large Windows program.  We just got Borland C++
>and made the necessary conversions and compiled it.  The size differences are
>quite surprising.

>   Microsoft C 5.1 .EXE:  720672 bytes
>       Borland C++ .EXE:  842848 bytes

>The optimization for Microsoft is -Os for space.  The optimization for Borland
>is all but -Z (aliasing).  I'm interested in knowing what everyone else is
>seeing.

On a typical program I get
    Microsoft C 6.0 .EXE: 142000 bytes
    Borland C++ .EXE:     000000 bytes

My code needs to be linked to a vendors object library, compiled with
MSC.  Borland C++ supports MS WINDOWS but not MS libraries.  :-(
-- 
Kevin Kleinfelter @ Dun and Bradstreet Software, Inc (404) 239-2347
...gatech!nanovx!msa3b!kevin
Warning: There seem to be multiple 'msa3b' nodes on Usenet, and it is
nanoVX, not nanovAx.