On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com> wrote: > On 18 September 2014 23:46, Ian Grant wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Tobias Ulmer <tobi...@tmux.org> wrote: >>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 01:26:48PM -0400, Ian Grant wrote: >>>> I can compile the first stage OK, and the binaries are quite modest: >>>> >>>> -rwxr-xr-x 1 ian ian 17.2M Sep 6 03:47 prev-gcc/cc1 >>>> -rwxr-xr-x 1 ian ian 1.2M Sep 6 04:24 prev-gcc/cpp >>>> -rwxr-xr-x 1 ian ian 1.2M Sep 6 04:24 prev-gcc/xgcc >>> >>> Gcc 4.9 binaries on OpenBSD/amd64 are resonable: >>> >>> -r-xr-xr-x 1 root bin 11.6M Sep 9 03:02 cc1 >>> -r-xr-xr-x 1 root bin 15.4M Sep 9 03:02 gnat1 >>> -r-xr-xr-x 1 root bin 749K Sep 9 03:02 ecpp >> >> I think we need to be able to explain this. It's an increase of over >> 60%, I wouldn't expect that to be due to the relative ineffiiciency of >> Intel instruction encoding over AMD. And it is not due to the >> inclusion of libsylkrts (it's much easier to say "Intel library", how >> many other libraries are there in GCC that were written by Intel?) > > liboffload might get added soon.
I don't know what that is. I'll look it up later maybe. >> because that is not in the stage1 bootstrap. > > Are you looking at stripped binaries or unstripped? I don't know. How should I find out, read the Makefile? :-) Doesn't the stage-1 get stripped? I'm not a GCC developer, I'm a 'user.' > Have you compared the binaries using size(1) instead of ls(1)? Yes, they're a lot smaller. Are you suggesting the filesystem size is just holes in the file? I would want to know what data is in there. Think of this as a security audit. Ian
