Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: C23 thoughts and opinions
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:12:39 +0300
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 107
Message-ID: <20240609141239.00006be6@yahoo.com>
References: <v2l828$18v7f$1@dont-email.me>
	<v38of2$1gsj2$1@dont-email.me>
	<v39v87$1n7bk$1@dont-email.me>
	<20240530170836.00005fa0@yahoo.com>
	<v3a3k5$1ntrn$1@dont-email.me>
	<20240530180345.00003d9f@yahoo.com>
	<v3chc4$27uij$1@dont-email.me>
	<20240531161937.000063af@yahoo.com>
	<20240531162811.00006719@yahoo.com>
	<20240531164835.00007128@yahoo.com>
	<v3cldt$28n91$2@dont-email.me>
	<20240531173437.00003bee@yahoo.com>
	<v3d3ct$2b5sl$1@dont-email.me>
	<v3d97c$2c6ea$1@dont-email.me>
	<22r6O.5934$xPJ1.2590@fx09.iad>
	<v3t6nu$1liet$1@dont-email.me>
	<v3tlmo$1o860$7@dont-email.me>
	<v427sv$2no3h$1@dont-email.me>
	<v42cs4$2pjrh$1@dont-email.me>
	<20240609124032.00004eb1@yahoo.com>
	<v43vkr$3d7el$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2024 13:12:25 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6a2ea81ad9dc1fc6d46f58b03380a32f";
	logging-data="3492441"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18uhPL34B2wzex1WyabhITTL7suzv8y05U="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:LYAIWvdqvOPYktOTz6cWmhputdk=
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 3.19.1 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
Bytes: 5686

On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 11:20:11 +0100
bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:

> On 09/06/2024 10:40, Michael S wrote:
> > On Sat, 8 Jun 2024 14:52:26 -0500
> > BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> wrote:
> >   
> >> On 6/8/2024 1:28 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:  
> >>> On 07/06/2024 01:53, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:  
> >>>> On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 15:38:21 -0500, BGB-Alt wrote:
> >>>>     
> >>>>> *2: Seemingly the main way I am aware of to get small binaries
> >>>>> is to use an older version of MSVC (such as 6.0 to 9.0), as the
> >>>>> binary-bloat started to get much more obvious around Visual
> >>>>> Studio 2010, but is less of an issue with VS2005 or VS2008.  
> >>>>
> >>>> Newer version of proprietary compiler generates worse code than
> >>>> older version?!?  
> >>> If the code is calling extern gunctions that do IO, we woul expect
> >>> these to be massively more sophisticated on a modern ststem Witha
> >>> little comouter, pribtf just wtites acharacter raster and
> >>> utimalthe he Os picks the up and flushes it out to a pixel
> >>> raster. And that' aal it's doing. Whilst on a modrern syste,
> >>> stdout can do whole lot of intricate things.  
> >>
> >> That is a whole lot of typos...
> >>
> >>
> >> But, even if it is built calling MSVCRT as a DLL (rather than
> >> static linked), modern MSVC is still the worst of the bunch in
> >> this area.
> >>
> >> A build as RISC-V + PIE with a static-linked C library still
> >> manages to be smaller than an x64 build via MSVC with entirely
> >> dynamic-linked libraries.
> >>
> >> And, around 72% bigger than the same program built as a
> >> dynamic-linked binary with "GCC -O3" (while also often still being
> >> around 40% slower).
> >>  
> > 
> > GCC on Windows or on Linux?
> > In my experience, gcc on Windows (ucrt64 variant, other gcc variants
> > are worse) very consistently produces bigger (stripped) exe than
> > even latest MSVCs which, as you correctly stated, are not as good
> > as older versions at producing small code.
> > 
> > The size of 'Hello, world' program (x86-64, dynamically linked C
> > RTL) vs2013 - 6,144 bytes
> > vs2019 - 9,216 bytes
> > gcc (Debian Linux, -no-pie) - 14,400 bytes
> > gcc (Debian Linux) - 14,472 bytes
> > gcc (ucrt64 DLL) - 18,432 bytes
> > gcc (old DLL) - 42,496 bytes  
> 
> I get a lot worse than that:
> 
>     C:\c>gcc hello.c  
> 
>     C:\c>dir a.exe  
>     09/06/2024  11:04           367,349 a.exe
> 
>     C:\c>gcc hello.c -s -Os  
> 
>     C:\c>dir a.exe  
>     09/06/2024  11:04            88,064 a.exe
> 
> (It didn't like -Oz; did you mean something other than -Os?)
> 

No, I meant -Oz.
It was invented by clang, but newer gcc understand it.
I don't know what is a difference exactly, but -Oz tends to be a little
smaller.
In program as trivial as this, there should be no difference.

> Both import msvcrt.dll. gcc is version 10.3.0.
>

My gcc variants are from msys2.
Where did you get yours?

> tcc gives 2KB, and mcc gives 2.5KB.
> 

x86-64 or i386?
I think, on i386 VC5 can come close, but can not match it.
I don't have VC5 right now. Last time I tried to find it it was
surprisingly hard.
Well, probably I still has it on one very old PC that I didn't power up
for many years. I don't know if it is still alive.

> (With the latter, I know it is because it uses a comprises 5 blocks
> of data each of which is at least 512 bytes: 2 for header stuff, plus 
> always 3 segments. The mininum hello.exe size I think is 700 bytes if
> a few corners are cut.)
> 
> 367KB sounds astonishing, but the first time I tried Dart, it gave me
> a 5MB executable for 'hello.dart'.

golang tend to start at >1.5MB, but then it grows very slowly. It
appears to generate *very* self-contained executives. At least I
personally never encountered case where simple copy of exe to new
computer was insufficient.
Considering that go needs much more of run-time support than dart, I
can't find any reason for 5MB except "they don't care".