| 1 |
On Monday, September 29, 2014 12:37:37 AM Jorge Almeida wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 10:56 PM, walt <w41ter@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On 09/28/2014 01:44 AM, Jorge Almeida wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> I'm having a somewhat disgusting issue on my Gentoo: binaries are |
| 5 |
> >> unaccountably large. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > Are you cross-compiling for different hardware? I'm just curious what |
| 8 |
> > results you get with --march=native. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Nope. Actually, I compiled with --march=native, with no difference |
| 11 |
> (probably because my code is not fancy enough to make use of whatever |
| 12 |
> stuff that pulls), but then tried i686 just to enable comparing with |
| 13 |
> non-Gentoo systems. |
| 14 |
> The purpose is to have small static binaries compiled against dietlibc |
| 15 |
> to be used in the same computer (compile once and forget about future |
| 16 |
> software incompatibilities!). I compiled against glibc to make sure |
| 17 |
> the problem is not with dietlibc. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Did you compile the used libraries using the exact same options on both |
| 20 |
systems as well? |
| 21 |
When compiling a static binary, the libraries are included into the resulting |
| 22 |
binary. |
| 23 |
If the libraries on Gentoo are bigger, the resulting static binary will also |
| 24 |
be bigger. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Joost |
Archives