Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!spool.mu.edu!uunet!gistdev!flint
From: flint@gistdev.gist.com (Flint Pellett)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms.programmer
Subject: Re: Borland C++ vs Microsoft C 5.10
Keywords: windows borland microsoft
Message-ID: <1153@gistdev.gist.com>
Date: 21 Mar 91 17:52:41 GMT
References: <350@intertel.UUCP> <7320@idunno.Princeton.EDU>
Organization: Global Information Systems Technology Inc., Savoy, IL
Lines: 29

mg@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Michael Golan) writes:

>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.

Are those numbers the size of the .exe file, or the actual code size?
(You can find out the size of the code with MSC's "exemod" program.)
I know the .exe size and the code size don't always have much to do
with one another, and compiler options can affect it a lot.  For example,
I recently built a program with MSC 5.1, and Watcom C 7.0:  The .exe
sizes were both 115K.  exemod showed better what was going on: the minimum
load size was 131K for MSC, 115K for Watcom.  (If you really want good
code, get Watcom C: it tends to be 10% better.)  I think Borland tends to
leave a lot of things in the .exe to aid debugging that don't actually
increase the amount of memory the program needs to execute, so things
may not be as bad as you think.  I'll try my program under TC++ and see
what the results are there.
-- 
Flint Pellett, Global Information Systems Technology, Inc.
1800 Woodfield Drive, Savoy, IL  61874     (217) 352-1165
uunet!gistdev!flint or flint@gistdev.gist.com