[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes:
> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Herbert Voss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> can somebody please explain, why using the gcc 3.1
> >> stops the bloat of the compiled lyx?
> >
> | IIRC, they had some changes in the default debu
David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Herbert Voss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> can somebody please explain, why using the gcc 3.1
>> stops the bloat of the compiled lyx?
>
| IIRC, they had some changes in the default debug format (this would
| probably not apply if you stripped executa
Herbert Voss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jul 04, 2002 at 05:15:42PM +0200, Herbert Voss wrote:
>>
>>>can somebody please explain, why using the gcc 3.1
>>>stops the bloat of the compiled lyx?
>>>
>> Compared to what?
>
>
| sorry,
| 2.96: was about 116 MByte
|
Herbert Voss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> can somebody please explain, why using the gcc 3.1
> stops the bloat of the compiled lyx?
IIRC, they had some changes in the default debug format (this would
probably not apply if you stripped executables), and they have had
changes in the C++ API (for
Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 04, 2002 at 05:15:42PM +0200, Herbert Voss wrote:
>
>>can somebody please explain, why using the gcc 3.1
>>stops the bloat of the compiled lyx?
>>
>
> Compared to what?
sorry,
2.96: was about 116 MByte
3.1:is about 67 MByte
> Do you have any hard numb
On Thu, Jul 04, 2002 at 05:15:42PM +0200, Herbert Voss wrote:
> can somebody please explain, why using the gcc 3.1
> stops the bloat of the compiled lyx?
Compared to what?
Better optimization perhaps?
Do you have any hard numbers?
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gai
can somebody please explain, why using the gcc 3.1
stops the bloat of the compiled lyx?
Herbert
--
http://www.lyx.org/help/
