Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!darwin.sura.net!uvaarpa!cv3.cv.nrao.edu!laphroaig!cflatter From: cflatter@nrao.edu (Chris Flatters) Subject: Re: How suitable is gcc-2.2.2 for 386bsd? Message-ID: <1992Oct28.183940.5859@nrao.edu> Sender: news@nrao.edu Reply-To: cflatter@nrao.edu Organization: NRAO References: <1992Oct28.135008.29265@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1992 18:39:40 GMT Lines: 24 In article 29265@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg, eoahmad@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg (Othman Ahmad) writes: >Linus Torvalds (torvalds@klaava.Helsinki.FI) wrote: >: There should probably be no other major problems (although gcc-2.2.2 is >: a lot bigger than 1.39, so if you are tight on memory, 1.39 is much >: faster). >: > >gcc-2.2.2 is bigger than gcc-1.39 & g++, being about 6 Megabytes binary. >gcc&g++ 1.39 occupy about 2 megabytes(?). Linus is talking about the size of the executables while Othman appears to be talking about the disk space required. A quick check using the size command on a SPARCstation (so results might differ somewhat under 386BSD) shows that the C compiler (cc1) has increased slightly in size from 1.4 to 2.2.2 (about .8Mbytes to about 1Mbyte). The C++ compiler has increased rather more substantially (1.1Mbytes to 1.5Mbytes) and the preprocessor has actually shrunk (about 173 kbytes to 100 kbytes). I suspect that version 2.2.2 may consume substantially more dynamically allocated memory that 1.4 but I haven't checked this. Chris Flatters cflatter@nrao.edu