From: Steve M. Robbins (steven.robbins_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-24 19:02:53
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 05:03:17PM -0500, David Abrahams wrote:
> My questions are:
> 1. Does anyone know of a "magic bullet" for decreasing the size of C++
> shared libs on Unix (and secondarily, with GCC on any platform)?
What flags are you compiling with? All the compiles I do (using
"gcc-stlport.jam") end up with all optimization turned off, using the
-O0 flag. Try again with -O2, perhaps.
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 06:24:03PM -0500, David Abrahams wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rene Rivera" <grafik666_at_[hidden]>
> > On 2002-02-24 at 05:03 PM, david.abrahams_at_[hidden] (David Abrahams) wrote:
> > >2. It looks like Unix linkers generally admit "-s" as an option which
> > >indicates that symbols should be stripped from the result. Does it make
> > >sense to apply this whenever <optimization>space is specified?
> > No, after all I might want to debug some optimization that is causing
> > problems. But it certainly does make sense to add the "-s" flag when
> > "<debug-symbols>off" is specified.
> OK, makes sense. But if the compiler isn't generating any debug symbols in
> the first place, why does stripping the linked result make any difference?
You're sure that no debug symbols are being emitted? All my builds
use the "-g" flag.
-- by Rocket to the Moon, by Airplane to the Rocket, by Taxi to the Airport, by Frontdoor to the Taxi, by throwing back the blanket and laying down the legs ... - They Might Be Giants
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk