On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 05:39:58PM -0500, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> At 10:22 AM -1000 3/21/04, Clifton Royston wrote:
> > > Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 From: Garance A Drosihn
> > >
> > > So, by adding one call to strcmp() to check for a ":" string, I
> > > end up with /bin/ps (the stripped-object-fi
From: Garance A Drosihn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> At 7:35 PM -0500 3/21/04, Don Bowman wrote:
> >From: Garance A Drosihn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> >> So maybe this has something to do with how linking is done
> >> for ELF modules. Unfortunately, I need to be concentrating
> >> on som
At 7:35 PM -0500 3/21/04, Don Bowman wrote:
From: Garance A Drosihn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
So maybe this has something to do with how linking is done
for ELF modules. Unfortunately, I need to be concentrating
on something else right now...
It's not just bumping you up another module 4K pa
From: Garance A Drosihn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> At 2:52 PM -0800 3/21/04, Kip Macy wrote:
> >The heuristics vary from platform to platform - what does
> >"objdump -d" show?
>
> Based on what I see from that, the 'ps.o' which has the extra
> strcmp is about 40 bytes larger than the one without
At 2:52 PM -0800 3/21/04, Kip Macy wrote:
The heuristics vary from platform to platform - what does
"objdump -d" show?
Based on what I see from that, the 'ps.o' which has the extra
strcmp is about 40 bytes larger than the one without it. And
now that you mention it, doing a plain 'ls -l' of ps.o s
The heuristics vary from platform to platform - what does "objdump -d"
show?
-Kip
>
> Well, I was hoping someone would have already seen this before,
> but I guess I will need to do some more checking if I'm going
> to get a better idea of what is going on. I'll put it on my
>
At 10:22 AM -1000 3/21/04, Clifton Royston wrote:
> Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 From: Garance A Drosihn
>
> So, by adding one call to strcmp() to check for a ":" string, I
> end up with /bin/ps (the stripped-object-file) which has grown
> by 12.6% !! This is for a program which is almost 2500 l
> Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 17:45:04 -0500 From: Garance A Drosihn
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Adventures with gcc: code vs object-code
> size To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
>
> I have written a fairly major
On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 07:45:43PM +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> But (IMHO) this is a lot less clear than the former code (thought I admit
> I'm guilty of doing this quite a lot in my code). Note that a modern C
> compiler is free to convert
> strcpy(elemcopy, ":") == 0
> into
> elemcopy[0] ==
On Sat, 20 Mar 2004, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> I am not a compilier guru, so I suspect it would take me hours to
> pin this down. I don't want to do that, so I'm wondering if anyone
> understands how such a minor code-change can POSSIBLY cause such a
> huge change in resulting object file... I
On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 02:20:13AM -0500, Matt Emmerton wrote:
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Garance A Drosihn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 5:45 PM
>Subject: Adventures with gcc: code vs object-code size
>> if (strcmp(elemcopy, ":") == 0)
- Original Message -
From: "Garance A Drosihn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 5:45 PM
Subject: Adventures with gcc: code vs object-code size
> I have written a fairly major set of changes to the `ps' command,
> which is available as:
> http://
12 matches
Mail list logo
