Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!csus.edu!borland.com!alexande
From: alexande@borland.com (Mark Alexander)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms.programmer
Subject: Re: Borland C++ vs Microsoft C 5.10
Keywords: windows borland microsoft
Message-ID: <1991Mar25.203521.28134@borland.com>
Date: 25 Mar 91 20:35:21 GMT
References: <350@intertel.UUCP> <7320@idunno.Princeton.EDU>
Organization: Borland International
Lines: 25

In article <7320@idunno.Princeton.EDU> 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.
>
>Ok guys, anyone care to comment? I always felt that MSC produced shorter code
>for any *REAL* program. The above test is not even fair to MS, as MSC6 
>produces a little shorter code (3-6% in my large programs). Also, -Os is
>not optimal for code size (Despite what the manual say, you can reduce the
>code a little more by playing with the options).

It would be interesting to see how much of the EXE file is actually
code.  Possibly you're seeing the result of TLINK putting "far"
uninitialized data in the EXE file, instead of letting the loader zero
the data (the MSC approach).  Once the programs are loaded, the
difference may not be nearly as large as the EXE file sizes would
indicate.  Admittedly, it would be nice to not waste the extra
disk space.