Thread overview
Size of executable almost triples
Jul 29, 2008
Stefan
Jul 29, 2008
Moritz Warning
Jul 29, 2008
bearophile
Jul 29, 2008
Moritz Warning
Jul 30, 2008
Stefan
Jul 30, 2008
Moritz Warning
Jul 30, 2008
Rakan Alhneiti
July 29, 2008
I recently had to fix a little bug in an D application (win32). I thought that I would also be a good idea to upgrade to the most current version of the D compiler.
When upgrading to 1.033 from 1.025 the executable size almost tripled from 227 kb to 603 kb! After building with all version from 1.025 up I found that this phenomenon occurs when switching from 1.031 to 1.032.

Any ideas?

Stefan

July 29, 2008
"Stefan" <Stefan.Liebig@compeople.de> wrote in message news:g6n37d$2dhc$1@digitalmars.com...
>I recently had to fix a little bug in an D application (win32). I thought that I would also be a good idea to upgrade to the most current version of the D compiler.
> When upgrading to 1.033 from 1.025 the executable size almost tripled from 227 kb to 603 kb! After building with all version from 1.025 up I found that this phenomenon occurs when switching from 1.031 to 1.032.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Stefan
>

Bearophile noticed this when 1.032 came out, too.  There has not yet been any resolution as far as I know.


July 29, 2008
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 08:42:21 -0400, Stefan wrote:

> I recently had to fix a little bug in an D application (win32). I thought that I would also be a good idea to upgrade to the most current version of the D compiler. When upgrading to 1.033 from 1.025 the executable size almost tripled from 227 kb to 603 kb! After building with all version from 1.025 up I found that this phenomenon occurs when switching from 1.031 to 1.032.
> 
> Any ideas?
> 
> Stefan

Is there a bug report already? I haven't found one yet. Such bloat is quite annoying.

Btw., you can always use "strip <program>" to reduce the binary size. Or even upx.
July 29, 2008
Moritz Warning:
> Btw., you can always use "strip <program>" to reduce the binary size. Or even upx.

What strip do you use for this? The strip I use isn't compatible:

strip:foo.exe: File format not recognized

BFD header file version (GNU Binutils) 2.18.50.20080109

Bye,
bearophile
July 29, 2008
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 11:39:25 -0400, bearophile wrote:

> Moritz Warning:
>> Btw., you can always use "strip <program>" to reduce the binary size. Or even upx.
> 
> What strip do you use for this? The strip I use isn't compatible:
> 
> strip:foo.exe: File format not recognized
> 
> BFD header file version (GNU Binutils) 2.18.50.20080109
> 
> Bye,
> bearophile

I'm on linux, works fine there.
July 30, 2008
Do you have a similar effect with Linux?
You mentioned strip, what does it exactly?

Stefan

Moritz Warning Wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 08:42:21 -0400, Stefan wrote:
> 
> > I recently had to fix a little bug in an D application (win32). I thought that I would also be a good idea to upgrade to the most current version of the D compiler. When upgrading to 1.033 from 1.025 the executable size almost tripled from 227 kb to 603 kb! After building with all version from 1.025 up I found that this phenomenon occurs when switching from 1.031 to 1.032.
> > 
> > Any ideas?
> > 
> > Stefan
> 
> Is there a bug report already? I haven't found one yet. Such bloat is quite annoying.
> 
> Btw., you can always use "strip <program>" to reduce the binary size. Or even upx.

July 30, 2008
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 02:11:27 -0400, Stefan wrote:

> Do you have a similar effect with Linux? You mentioned strip, what does it exactly?
> 
strip removes all debugging and symbol information from a binary. Afaik, you can't link the binary afterwards or debug it properly, but that's often no problem for release builds.

Anyway, it's not a workaround for the increased file size.
July 30, 2008
Moritz Warning wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 02:11:27 -0400, Stefan wrote:
> 
>> Do you have a similar effect with Linux? You mentioned strip, what does
>> it exactly?
>>
> strip removes all debugging and symbol information from a binary.
> Afaik, you can't link the binary afterwards or debug it properly,
> but that's often no problem for release builds.
> 
> Anyway, it's not a workaround for the increased file size.

I ran into this problem earlier as i was developing IntelliD (which is not done yet!). The file size went up to 9 MB in size, i removed -g -debug symbols from my compilation command and i think it went down to 7 or 8 MB. Using UPX i managed to get it size my files down to 2.5 MB which is good enough for a text-editor.