Downloaded Bloodshed devcpp, compiled the Hello example but the exe is half a megabyte!?

[Dave -Turner]

So I just downloaded Bloodshed devcpp, opened up the Hello example, compiled
it, no problems ..... well, except one - the exe is 474,990 bytes!
What's the secret to compiling small exes?
Thanks

[DerekBaker]

* Dave -Turner:

So I just downloaded Bloodshed devcpp, opened up the Hello example, compiled
it, no problems ..... well, except one - the exe is 474,990 bytes!
What's the secret to compiling small exes?
Thanks

This is the place to ask questions about Dev-C++:
http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?forum_id=48211

--
Derek

[Dave -Turner]

mmk thanks .... but what c++ compilers are we allowed to ask questions about
here in comp.lang.c++ ?

[Neelesh Bodas]

On Oct 29, 8:26 am, "Dave -Turner" <[e-mail] e:

mmk thanks .... but what c++ compilers are we allowed to ask questions about
here in comp.lang.c++ ?

In this group concepts regarding the *The standard C++ language* are
discussed. If the answer to the question depends on idndividual
implementation/compiler/OS then this is probably not the appropriate
place to discuss them.

You can read more about comp.lang.c++ here :
http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lit...t.html#faq-5.9

-N

[Kai-Uwe Bux]

Dave -Turner wrote:

mmk thanks .... but what c++ compilers are we allowed to ask questions
about here in comp.lang.c++ ?

None. See the FAQ for a more detailed account on topicality.
There are exceptions. One case where asking about particular compilers is
fine is when two compilers disagree on legality or meaning of code. Then it
is topical to ask which (if any) compiler is right. In these cases, the
information about the compiler is by and large immaterial. Hint: if you can
replace the names of the compilers by X and Y and there still would be a
meaningful answer, it is probably topical.

Best

Kai-Uwe Bux

[James Kanze]

On Oct 29, 4:07 am, "Dave -Turner" <[e-mail] e:

So I just downloaded Bloodshed devcpp, opened up the Hello
example, compiled it, no problems ..... well, except one - the
exe is 474,990 bytes! What's the secret to compiling small
exes?

Getting the compiler and linker options right:-). It all
depends on the compiler, and also what you mean by the size of
the executable (file size, or what the command size says), but
all systems I've used have options controlling the amount of
debug information (symbols, etc) left in the executable, and
most also have options for linking more or less of the standard
library dynamically. Strip all of your symbols, and link
everything dynamically, and the resulting executable shouldn't
be too big. Thus, for example, with g++ on a Sparc, one simple
C++ version of hello world is 7.7KB when the libraries are
dynamically linked, but more than 3 MB when everything is linked
statically.

Be careful about this, though. File size is rarely that
important, and if you link dynamically, you have to ensure that
the necessary dll or so are present on the target machine where
the code is to run. And if you link statically, you have to
ensure that the version of the library you link is compatible
with the OS on the target machine. Under Unix, for example, I
generally link everything but the system libraries (libc, libm,
etc.) statically---the system libraries are bundled with the
system (and so sure to be present on all machines running the
OS), and tend not to be compatible between versions of the OS.
Under Windows, I'd statically link the system libraries as well,
since they aren't bundled (and individual versions do seem to
work under different versions of the OS). This results in much
larger executable files, but 1) all I have to do to install the
program so that it works is copy the single, executable file,
and 2) the versions of the library which I tested are the same
as those which the user uses. For third party libraries, you'll
want to decide on a per library basis: licensing issues will
frequently require the library to be present on the target
system anyway, and using dynamic linking may allow upgrading the
version (e.g. of the database) without requiring a new
deployment of your software.

Similarly, if you strip symbols, the executable you deliver will
be much smaller, but you'll have a much harder time figuring out
what went wrong if it crashes at the user site. (Again, the
criteria are different for Unix and Windows---Windows doesn't
normally give you a core dump on which you can do a post
mortum, so the lack of symbols may not be a problem.)

--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:ja******* **@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientier ter Datenverarbeitu ng
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, [phone]

[James Kanze]

On Oct 29, 4:49 am, Kai-Uwe Bux <jkherci...@gmx .netwrote:

Dave -Turner wrote:

mmk thanks .... but what c++ compilers are we allowed to ask questions
about here in comp.lang.c++ ?

None. See the FAQ for a more detailed account on topicality.

There are exceptions. One case where asking about particular
compilers is fine is when two compilers disagree on legality
or meaning of code. Then it is topical to ask which (if any)
compiler is right. In these cases, the information about the
compiler is by and large immaterial. Hint: if you can replace
the names of the compilers by X and Y and there still would be
a meaningful answer, it is probably topical.

More generally, questions about specific compiler options, etc.,
are off topic, but there are often generalities which apply to
many different compilers, which are perfectly acceptable. Thus,
I have no idea what Bloodshed is as a compiler, and couldn't
begin to tell him what options he should be using, even if it
were on topic. But I know that generally, there are two things
that have a very large effect on the size of an executable; by
playing with the amount of debugging information in the
executable, and how much is dynamically linked, I can vary the
size of hello, world from 4.8KB to over 3MB with g++ under
Solaris. The exact sizes on other systems will be different,
but such ranges are typical. Telling him that he has to look
for the options of his compiler which control the amount of
debug information and what is linked statically or dynamically
is certainly on topic, as is telling him that there are a lot
more important considerations than just executable file size
which have to be taken into account.

--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:ja******* **@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientier ter Datenverarbeitu ng
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, [phone]

[Dave -Turner]

Ok well, I asked at the Bloodshed forum as suggested and although this issue
has been discussed somewhat there doesn't seem to be any apparent solution
to it other than 1) make sure debugging info isnt being included, and 2)
make sure Strip Executable in compiler options is turned on.
That managed to get the exe down to 263kb, but that's seemingly as small as
it'll get, so that forum seemed somewhat useless. I can make the same exe
using lcc in around 3kb.

But because I can't talk about DevCpp here I guess this newsgroup is equally
useless to ask for help. Perhaps you should rename it to something more
suitable, I can think of a few suggestions.

[=?UTF-8?B?RXJpayBXaWtzdHLDtm0=?=]

On 2007-10-30 02:56, Dave -Turner wrote:

Ok well, I asked at the Bloodshed forum as suggested and although this issue
has been discussed somewhat there doesn't seem to be any apparent solution
to it other than 1) make sure debugging info isnt being included, and 2)
make sure Strip Executable in compiler options is turned on.
That managed to get the exe down to 263kb, but that's seemingly as small as
it'll get, so that forum seemed somewhat useless. I can make the same exe
using lcc in around 3kb.

Just a though, might it be that the compiler you are using with
Bloodshed is unable to produce a smaller executable? All compilers are
not equal when it comes to generating code, so produces small code some
produces large, some fast, and some slow.

But because I can't talk about DevCpp here I guess this newsgroup is equally
useless to ask for help. Perhaps you should rename it to something more
suitable, I can think of a few suggestions.

This groups is very aptly named, it is not comp.lang.c++ compilers, or
comp.lang.c++.b loodshed, it is just comp.lang.c++ which reflects quite
well what we discuss here. Let us take a quick look at the components
for a while. The "comp" tells us that what is discussed is related to
computers in some why, the "lang" means that we discuss a computer
language, and the "c++" means that it is the c++ computer language we
are discussing. Had it been comp.c++ compilers might have been on topic
but that is not the case so they are not.

--
Erik Wikström

[Dave -Turner]

"Erik Wikström" <Er***********@ telia.comwrote in message
news:Rh******** *********@newsb .telia.net...

On 2007-10-30 02:56, Dave -Turner wrote:

>Ok well, I asked at the Bloodshed forum as suggested and although this
issue
has been discussed somewhat there doesn't seem to be any apparent
solution
to it other than 1) make sure debugging info isnt being included, and 2)
make sure Strip Executable in compiler options is turned on.
That managed to get the exe down to 263kb, but that's seemingly as small
as
it'll get, so that forum seemed somewhat useless. I can make the same exe
using lcc in around 3kb.

Just a though, might it be that the compiler you are using with
Bloodshed is unable to produce a smaller executable? All compilers are
not equal when it comes to generating code, so produces small code some
produces large, some fast, and some slow.

I'm simply using the default as-is installation of Bloodshed Dev-Cpp. If
you go to their site and download it now youll have exactly what i've got.

>But because I can't talk about DevCpp here I guess this newsgroup is
equally
useless to ask for help. Perhaps you should rename it to something more
suitable, I can think of a few suggestions.

This groups is very aptly named, it is not comp.lang.c++ compilers, or
comp.lang.c++.b loodshed, it is just comp.lang.c++ which reflects quite
well what we discuss here. Let us take a quick look at the components
for a while. The "comp" tells us that what is discussed is related to
computers in some why, the "lang" means that we discuss a computer
language, and the "c++" means that it is the c++ computer language we
are discussing. Had it been comp.c++ compilers might have been on topic
but that is not the case so they are not.

Well let's see .....
comp.* .... yes, I'm enquiring about a computer language, which is computer
related
comp.lang.* .... yes, again I'm enquiring about a computer language
comp.lang.c++ .... yes, I'm enquiring about a computer language, and yes
it's c++.

BUT NO.
So apparently my only fault was mentioning the word "Bloodshed" , because
other than that it wouldve been "generic". <insert wanking notions here>

How about changing the name to
comp.lang.c++.d ont.ask.we're.a bsolutely.blood y.useless ??? At least then
newcomers would know what this newsgroup is about - I wouldn't have bothered
wasting mine (or your) time if I had've known that this newsgroup was
useless when it comes to c++-related questions.