[unix-pc.sources] Posting Binaries of GNU GCC 1.30 for UNIXpc

clb@loci.UUCP (Charles Brunow) (10/28/88)

In article <450@mfgfoc.uucp>, mike@mfgfoc.uucp (Mike Thompson) writes:
> 
> Greetings fellow UNIXpc'ers:
> 
> I am posting along with this message the first of a series of
> uuencoded files which contain the binaries for version 1.30
> of the GNU GCC 'C' compiler.  I am posting these in the hope

	Hmmm, seems that you realy mean greetings to the subset of
	UNIXpc'rs that a) run 3.51, b) care about gnu, and c) think
	binaries should be put in source groups. Since I don't fit
	a), b), or c) above, I guess I'll just expire it as it comes
	in. 

-- 
			CLBrunow - KA5SOF
	clb@loci.uucp, loci@csccat.uucp, loci@killer.dallas.tx.us
	  Loci Products, POB 833846-131, Richardson, Texas 75083

tkacik@rphroy.UUCP (Tom Tkacik) (11/01/88)

In article <450@mfgfoc.uucp> mike@mfgfoc.uucp (Mike Thompson) writes:
>I am posting along with this message the first of a series of
>uuencoded files which contain the binaries for version 1.30
>of the GNU GCC 'C' compiler.  I am posting these in the hope
>
>After uudecoding all of the files, you should have:
>
>gcc         with a length of 20965 bytes, comes in one uuen. file
>gcc-cpp     with a length of 47875 bytes, comes in 2 uuen. files
>gcc-gnulib  with a length of 14306 bytes, comes in 1 uuen. file
>gcc-cc1     with a length of 572349 bytes, comes in 16 uuen. files
>
These are the sizes I have for gcc-1.28.  Why is gcc-1.30 so much larger?
I know that each version get bigger than the last, but this is a very large
change.  Does anyone know what changed to make the difference in size so great?
Is gcc-1.30 that much different than gcc-1.28?

Enquiring minds want to know.

-rwxr-xr-x  1 bin     bin       10308 Sep 29 22:31 /usr/local/bin/gcc
-rwxr-xr-x  1 bin     bin       31724 Oct 11 22:36 /usr/local/lib/gcc-cpp
-rw-r--r--  1 bin     bin       14288 Sep 28 21:39 /usr/local/lib/gcc-gnulib
-rwxr-xr-x  1 bin     bin      436124 Sep 29 22:33 /usr/local/lib/gcc-cc1
---
Tom Tkacik
GM Research Labs
Warren MI
{umix, uunet!edsews}!rphroy!megatron!tkacik
{umix, uunet!edsews}!rphroy!tetnix!tet

brant@manta.pha.pa.us (Brant Cheikes) (11/04/88)

Tom Tkacik inquires why the gcc 1.30 binaries recently posted were so
much larger than his 1.28 version.  What a difference strip(1) makes,
huh?
-- 
Brant Cheikes
University of Pennsylvania
Department of Computer and Information Science
Internet: brant@manta.pha.pa.us, UUCP: bpa!manta!brant

jrmacmillan@lily.waterloo.edu (John R. MacMillan) (11/05/88)

In article <4061@rphroy.UUCP> tkacik@rphroy.UUCP (Tom Tkacik) writes:
|These are the sizes I have for gcc-1.28.  Why is gcc-1.30 so much larger?

The binaries Mike posted weren't stripped.  Stripped, they're around
the sizes you gave, so if yours were stripped already, there wasn't
much change.
--
John R. MacMillan			Space. The final frontier.
jrmacmillan@lily.waterloo.edu		Also a cool place to hang out
...!watmath!lily!jrmacmillan		for the evening.

res@cbnews.ATT.COM (Robert E. Stampfli) (11/05/88)

In article <4061@rphroy.UUCP> tkacik@rphroy.UUCP (Tom Tkacik) writes:
>In article <450@mfgfoc.uucp> mike@mfgfoc.uucp (Mike Thompson) writes:
>>After uudecoding all of the files, you should have:
>>
>>gcc         with a length of 20965 bytes, comes in one uuen. file
>>gcc-cpp     with a length of 47875 bytes, comes in 2 uuen. files
>>gcc-gnulib  with a length of 14306 bytes, comes in 1 uuen. file
>>gcc-cc1     with a length of 572349 bytes, comes in 16 uuen. files
>>
>These are the sizes I have for gcc-1.28.  Why is gcc-1.30 so much larger?
>
>-rwxr-xr-x  1 bin     bin       10308 Sep 29 22:31 /usr/local/bin/gcc
>-rwxr-xr-x  1 bin     bin       31724 Oct 11 22:36 /usr/local/lib/gcc-cpp
>-rw-r--r--  1 bin     bin       14288 Sep 28 21:39 /usr/local/lib/gcc-gnulib
>-rwxr-xr-x  1 bin     bin      436124 Sep 29 22:33 /usr/local/lib/gcc-cc1
>---

Tom, I think your executables are stripped.  The files Mike posted
are not.  I saved them that way, but stripped them when I installed them
on my machine.  Once stripped, the numbers are much closer to yours.

BTW, they work great under 3.5, even tho they were compiled
under 3.51

Rob Stampfli
att!cbnews!res (work)
osu-cis!n8emr!kd8wk!res (home)

extra lines for stupid software 
x
t
r
a

l
i
n
e
s

f
o
r

s
t
u
p
i
d

s
o
f
t
w
a
r
e