Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!harmonica.cis.ohio-state.edu!schanck
From: schanck@harmonica.cis.ohio-state.edu (Christopher Schanck)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: TC2.0 upgrade thoughts, and a decision...
Message-ID: <32925@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Date: 28 Jan 89 23:06:53 GMT
References: <32234@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> <13872@cup.portal.com> <4547@tekgvs.GVS.TEK.COM> <4197@drivax.DRI>
Sender: news@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Reply-To: Christopher Schanck <schanck@cis.ohio-state.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Ohio State University Computer and Information Science
Lines: 25

In article <4197@drivax.DRI> alexande@drivax.UUCP (Mark Alexander) writes:
>
>Are you folks really sure that Turbo C 2.0 generates larger objects?
>Comparing the file size is almost (but not quite) meaningless, because
>there's a lot more in a .OBJ file than raw code: debugging information,
>for example.
>
>You need to find out the actual size of the code segment in a .OBJ
>file to make accurate comparisons of compilers.  I have a program that
>reads object files and prints this sort of information, if anybody
>is interested.
I would disagree with this. If you set the compiler switches so it
will put no unnecessary info in, the bottom line is .EXE size. It does
depend on what you consider necessary, for instance, I always test for
stack overflow, but the bottom line for compilers is the .EXE size
with equivalent info.

>Mark Alexander	(amdahl!drivax!alexande)

Chris

-=-
"I do not THINK in regular expressions, and I am not NP-complete!"
--- Christopher Schanck, occasional human being.
schanck@.cis.ohio-state.edu