Path: ...!feed.opticnetworks.net!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: Baby X is bor nagain
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 11:36:16 +0300
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <20240625113616.000075e0@yahoo.com>
References: <v494f9$von8$1@dont-email.me>
	<v4pnq6$o4fs$1@dont-email.me>
	<v4q245$si2n$1@dont-email.me>
	<v4q2rl$sqk3$1@dont-email.me>
	<v52308$2nli8$3@dont-email.me>
	<v53i4s$33k73$2@dont-email.me>
	<v53lf7$34huc$1@dont-email.me>
	<v53vh6$368vf$1@dont-email.me>
	<v54se1$3bqsk$1@dont-email.me>
	<20240624160941.0000646a@yahoo.com>
	<v5bu5r$va3a$1@dont-email.me>
	<20240624181006.00003b94@yahoo.com>
	<v5c86d$11ac7$1@dont-email.me>
	<JEheO.108086$ED9b.74955@fx11.iad>
	<v5cblg$11q0j$1@dont-email.me>
	<gEieO.108089$ED9b.25598@fx11.iad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 10:35:57 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="005d77a9345c902387ac819a516a3997";
	logging-data="1547383"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18mtrdwCSOi7WcZ3Zrfw48H1K+JFZNPkhk="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:G7vQcpm3eVQF1geQDx+BKgwy4Ds=
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 3.19.1 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
Bytes: 3441

On Mon, 24 Jun 2024 18:10:20 GMT
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:

> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> >On 24/06/2024 18:02, Scott Lurndal wrote:  
> >> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:  
> >>> On 24/06/2024 16:10, Michael S wrote:  
> >>   
> >>>> But my project has much more than 34 modules. 164 modules
> >>>> compiled during build + several dozens in libraries.  
> >>>
> >>> Does that matter? My example is a smaller project, but I'm
> >>> comparing the rate of compilation not total time.
> >>>
> >>> If you want a bigger example, yesterday I posted one involving
> >>> 140 .c files, total EXE size is 5MB (don't know .text as this is
> >>> ELF format).  
> >> 
> >> Why do you believe that the size of the executable is interesting?
> >>  
> >
> >Well, what metric IS interesting?
> >
> >You seem to not care whether an executable is 10KB, 10MB, or 10GB.
> >You really don't think there's correspondence with build-time?  
> 
> No.  The ELF file contains a lot of stuff that never gets
> loaded into memory (symbol tables, DWARF section data, etc);
> writing to the object files by the compiler is an insignificant
> component of the overall compile time.
> 
> Build time is not related in any way to the size of the
> ELF.
>

That's why in my original post in this sub-thread, in order to give
a feeling of the size of compiler's job I gave the size of text
segment rather than size of the elf.
The size of text segment is, of course, not a good measure of
compiler's job, esp. when we are trying to compare compile jobs for
different target architectures, but it is less bad than any alternative
measure [that is not too hard to gather] that I can think of.
If you can think about anything better, please tell us.

> Disk space is cheap and plentiful.
> 
> 
> >
> >The .text was also something introduced by MS.  
> 
> I don't understand this comment.   .text predates any MS
> compiler by more than a decade.