On 1/27/20 12:56 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > Package: gcc-snapshot > Version: 1:20200124-1 > Severity: normal > > One has: > > -rw-r--r-- 1 198M 2019-11-30 15:28:32 gcc-snapshot_1%3a20191130-1_amd64.deb > -rw-r--r-- 1 567M 2020-01-24 23:43:53 gcc-snapshot_1%3a20200124-1_amd64.deb > > and > > Package: gcc-snapshot > Version: 1:20191130-1 > Installed-Size: 1066234 > > Package: gcc-snapshot > Version: 1:20200124-1 > Installed-Size: 3067842 > > So both the .deb size and the install size have almost tripled! > > According to a diff, this is apparently due to some executables from > /usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/libexec/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/10, which now have > debug info and are no longer stripped, making them 10 times as big. > > With gcc-snapshot 1:20191130-1, I get: > > -rwxr-xr-x 1 30M 2019-11-30 08:57:40 cc1* > -rwxr-xr-x 1 31M 2019-11-30 08:57:40 cc1obj* > -rwxr-xr-x 1 33M 2019-11-30 08:57:40 cc1plus* > -rwxr-xr-x 1 31M 2019-11-30 08:57:40 f951* > -rwxr-xr-x 1 31M 2019-11-30 08:57:40 go1* > -rwxr-xr-x 1 29M 2019-11-30 08:57:40 lto1* > > cc1: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (GNU/Linux), dynamically > linked, interpreter /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2, > BuildID[sha1]=48082c3df2f3c926a3c027af59e2906f7c24225f, for GNU/Linux 3.2.0, > stripped > > With gcc-snapshot 1:20200124-1, I get: > > -rwxr-xr-x 1 311M 2020-01-24 12:01:06 cc1* > -rwxr-xr-x 1 315M 2020-01-24 12:01:06 cc1obj* > -rwxr-xr-x 1 342M 2020-01-24 12:01:06 cc1plus* > -rwxr-xr-x 1 310M 2020-01-24 12:01:06 f951* > -rwxr-xr-x 1 335M 2020-01-24 12:01:06 go1* > -rwxr-xr-x 1 297M 2020-01-24 12:01:06 lto1* > > cc1: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (GNU/Linux), dynamically > linked, interpreter /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2, > BuildID[sha1]=27e3f615a396668fe72d9e30bbaaf055ccf5660f, for GNU/Linux 3.2.0, > with debug_info, not stripped > > Since the Debian changelog just says > > gcc-snapshot (1:20200124-1) unstable; urgency=medium > > * Snapshot, taken from the trunk (20200124). > > -- Matthias Klose <d...@debian.org> Fri, 24 Jan 2020 12:01:06 +0100 > > I suppose that this change can be a mistake.
no, leading to the GCC 10 release, I didn't strip the executables to get meaningful backtraces. Will revert in a month or two.
