Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Jorge Almeida <jjalmeida@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: bloated by gcc
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 23:37:47
Message-Id: CAKpSnpJw+E9yJPCbe9T1uAKp0Lf0SqkxnJv40k+7X8jZHpddCQ@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: [gentoo-user] Re: bloated by gcc by walt
1 On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 10:56 PM, walt <w41ter@×××××.com> wrote:
2 > On 09/28/2014 01:44 AM, Jorge Almeida wrote:
3 >> I'm having a somewhat disgusting issue on my Gentoo: binaries are
4 >> unaccountably large.
5 >>
6
7 > Are you cross-compiling for different hardware? I'm just curious what results
8 > 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 > Also, I looked up data-sections and function-sections (which I'd never heard
20 > of before today :) The gcc man page says the resulting executable will be
21 > larger and slower, and not to use them "unless there are significant benefits"
22 > but then doesn't say what those benefits might be. Hm, cryptic.
23 >
24 I found those flags in the net (probably StackOverflow), looking for
25 ways to optimize size. Maybe what you read was not meant to static
26 compiling?
27 Anyway, I used these flags in 4 systems (including LFS in the same
28 computer as Gentoo) and only the Gentoo system has this behaviour...
29
30 Thanks,
31
32 Jorge
33 >

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: bloated by gcc "J. Roeleveld" <joost@××××××××.org>