Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!tektronix!gvgpsa!davew
From: davew@gvgpsa.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards,comp.lang.c,comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: New feature of Ultrix C compilers
Message-ID: <540@gvgpsa.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 27-Sep-87 03:09:11 EDT
Article-I.D.: gvgpsa.540
Posted: Sun Sep 27 03:09:11 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 27-Sep-87 21:38:02 EDT
References: <867@sask.UUCP>
Reply-To: davew@gvgpsa.UUCP (David White)
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Inc., Grass Valley, CA
Lines: 26
Keywords: VAX C
Xref: utgpu comp.unix.wizards:4223 comp.lang.c:4359 comp.unix.questions:3851

In article <867@sask.UUCP> coleman@sask.UUCP (Geoff Coleman @ College of Engineering) writes:
>Ok all you experts out there who can explain this new
>feature of Ultrix 2.0 and its C compilers.
>
>We just installed Ultrix 2.0 on a uVax-II. Last night I 
>recompiled a couple of C programs using both the VAX C 
>compiler and the default comnpiler. The new executables were 
>~2.5 times the size of the old one. 
>
>	Anybody out there have a good explanation for this.

I have noticed the same thing, although not as exaggerated.  The
executables from my compilations with the VAX C Compiler were about 1.2
- 1.4 times as large as those with the standard C compiler.  I was
comparing stripped files which makes me wonder if Geoff was comparing
stripped vs. unstripped files.

What I am really curious about is whether anyone has done any
benchmarks between the standard C compiler and the VAX C compiler
supplied with Ultrix 2.0-1?  I can live with larger executables if they
execute faster.
-- 
===================================================================
Dave White		Grass Valley Group, Inc.
P.O. Box 1114   	Grass Valley, CA  95945
UUCP:	...!tektronix!gvgpsa!davew	PHONE:	+1 916 478 3052