Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!tekcrl!tekgvs!toma
From: toma@tekgvs.GVS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: TC2.0 upgrade thoughts, and a decision...
Message-ID: <4559@tekgvs.GVS.TEK.COM>
Date: 30 Jan 89 15:38:41 GMT
References: <32234@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> <13872@cup.portal.com> <4547@tekgvs.GVS.TEK.COM> <4197@drivax.DRI>
Reply-To: toma@tekgvs.GVS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.
Lines: 15

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. [...]

In my case, I noticed the .EXE files were larger, then I compared the
code sizes reported in the .MAP files to verify.  You can't compare
the OBJ or EXE sizes and be sure, since even the EXE files contain
relocation information that is not part of the objects, and the way the
stack and data areas are set up can also effect the size.

Tom Almy
toma@tekgvs.TEK.COM