Quoting David O'Brien <obrien_at_freebsd.org> (from Thu, 6 Dec 2007 08:34:08 -0800): > On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 08:43:42AM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote: >> And after the import of the new gcc in 7, a lot of people noticed, that >> the resulting binaries are larger with -Os than with -O2. > > quynh:/usr/src/usr.bin/vi> uname -m > amd64 > quynh:/usr/src/usr.bin/vi> /bin/ls -l nvi.-O* > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root ncvs 366894 Dec 6 08:21 nvi.-O2 > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root ncvs 313043 Dec 6 08:21 nvi.-Os > quynh:/usr/src/usr.bin/vi> size nvi.-O* > text data bss dec hex filename > 326132 1944 4392 332468 512b4 nvi.-O2 > 273759 1944 4392 280095 4461f nvi.-Os > > Perhaps you mean *sometimes* larger. AFAIR it makes the kernel in /boot/ much larger. > Also -Os goal is run-time foot print, not disk foot print. Could you please be a little bit more verbose? If we let alone debugging stuff which can be stripped out: how can you get a smaller size at run-time compared to the size on disk? If the binary size of a program on disk (without debugging stuff) is much larger, how can it be smaller at run-time in the end? Bye, Alexander. -- The difference between a good haircut and a bad one is seven days. http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander _at_ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild _at_ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137Received on Fri Dec 07 2007 - 08:50:07 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:23 UTC