Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!uunet!mcvax!hp4nl!philapd!ssp2!pb
From: pb@idca.tds.PHILIPS.nl (Peter Brouwer)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: 80486 vs. 68040 code size
Message-ID: <406@ssp2.idca.tds.philips.nl>
Date: 2 May 89 08:22:37 GMT
References: <13699@steinmetz.ge.com> <7952@killer.Dallas.TX.US> <405@ssp2.idca.tds.philips.nl> <13718@steinmetz.ge.com>
Organization: Philips Telecommunication and Data Systems, The Netherlands
Lines: 26

In article <13718@steinmetz.ge.com> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes:
>
>| >>   I checked the size of image files compiled from the same source on
>| >> Xenix/386 v2.3.1 and SunOS 3.4 (on a 3/280 if anyone cares). I noted
>My figures were clearly for Xenix, and I clearly stated the versions and
>stuff (I think the info was quoted and appears above).
A table with sizes of executables generated with size deleted.....

To get a good feeling about difference in size one should also compare
the size of the objects from which the executable is linked. This eliminates
the difference is size of linked in library parts of the operating system.
Of cource they also indicate something about the difference in size but
there might be sytem dependent code in it.

My experience is comparing sizes this way is that small funtions in C code
tend to get 5-10% bigger in object for the 386 uptill 50% for very large
functions. Using the same source codes with the same ifdef and compiler flags.

An other way in comparing sizes is using the output of nm ( it lists the 
function sizes ) or the output of the ld with the -m flag to generate a
link map.
-- 
#  Peter Brouwer,                     ##
#  Philips TDS, Dept SSP-V2           ## voice +31 55 432523
#  P.O. Box 245                       ## UUCP address ..!mcvax!philapd!pb
#  7300 AE Apeldoorn, The Netherlands ## Internet pb@idca.tds.philips.nl