[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: gcl-2.5.0

From: Matt Kaufmann
Subject: Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: gcl-2.5.0
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 06:10:47 -0600 (CST)

Hi --

For what it's worth, I tried stripping the solaris acl2 executable (built on
gcl) and that only reduced the size from 28309690 to 27186172.  (The resulting
image still seemed to work OK, including compilation.)  But maybe all this
proves is that I don't understand strip all that well.

Thanks --
-- Matt
   Reply-To: "Mike Thomas" <address@hidden>
   From: "Mike Thomas" <address@hidden>
   Cc: <address@hidden>, <address@hidden>, <address@hidden>
   Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 14:30:34 +1000
   Content-Type: text/plain;
   X-Priority: 3
   X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
   X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000

   Hi there.

   > > -rwxrwxr-x    1 kaufmann acl2     18818816 Nov  7 04:06 gcl-osaved_acl2
   > > -rwxrwxr-x    1 kaufmann acl2     28360331 Nov 11 22:54 gcl-saved_acl2

   In the context of g++ I saw an email recently that claimed that under gcc
   version 2.9.x binary stripping (-s flag) is on by default, whereas under 3.x
   it is off.

   I stripped the saved_gcl executable and got the following relative file

   -rwxr-xr-x    1 miketh   Administ  3428176 Nov 15 14:19

   -rwxr-xr-x    1 miketh   Administ  1447936 Nov 15 14:16

   The stripped executable crashes presumably because the Win32 rsym linking is
   messed up by a post-save strip, however on first glance, this may be the
   reason for the file size increase - you'll have to test on your own system
   and try turning -s on and off etc.


   Mike Thomas.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]