RE: About the i586 / i386 ' optimized releases ' differences ?
On Thu, 2001-11-15 at 10:08, Brooks R. Robinson wrote:
> | >| linked code). (Does anyone have benchmark results?) If I remember
> | >| correctly, it is debian policy to use '-g' and then strip non-library
> | >| binaries. I'm sure I'll get howls for suggesting it, but I think that
> | >| the policy should be to not use '-g' in the stable distribution.
> | >
> | current stable distribution. It would be great if someone could get some
> | hard numbers on the space saved and performance improvements of getting
> | rid of debugging symbols in the stable dist (and post it to devel).
>
> Greetings,
> I just did this as a test. Let's take the ubiquitous "Hello World"
> program. The code:
>
>
> #include <stdio.h>
>
> int main ( void )
> {
> printf( "Hello World\n" );
> return 0;
> }
>
>
> If you compile this with 'gcc -Wall test.c -o test_clean', the resulting
> binary is 4981 bytes. If you compile it with 'gcc -g -Wall test.c -o
> test_debug', the resulting binary is 14181 bytes. That is a 284% larger
> size. Or if you invert the fraction, the stripped binary is 35% of the size
> of the loaded binary. Another statistic is that the source code is a mere
> 82 bytes. Now, I don't suppose that this size comparison is exactly the
> same for all generated code, but it is an appreciable difference.
>
I built a linux from scratch system a while ago, which talks about
debugging symbols and relative sizes of stripped and unstripped
binaries. I quote from version 3.0:
Before you start wondering whether these debugging symbols really make a
big difference, here are some statistics. Use them to draw your own
conclusion.
* A dynamic Bash binary with debugging symbols: 1.2MB
* A dynamic Bash binary without debugging symbols: 478KB
* /lib and /usr/lib (glibc and gcc files) with debugging symbols: 87MB
* /lib and /usr/lib (glibc and gcc files) without debugging symbols:
16MB
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/view/3.0/ch06-aboutdebug.html
--
first impressions are bunk (unknown)
Reply to: