Hi Eric, No, I didn't try to optimize the code by removing printf() and friends. It's not such a big deal in fact - with Turbo C my code computed a binary of ~13K, and with OW it is more like ~21K. Both compile a real mode, 16bit binary. I was just expecting that a modern compiler like OW would make more compact binaries than the 1988 Turbo C, but I guess that it's simply because Watcom's libc have more stuff in it, and it (probably?) don't perform any dead code elimination inside units..
But you're right of course, I will take a look at the options used by FD kernel, maybe I missed the -enable-small-binaries switch I was looking for :) cheers, Mateusz On 07/26/2014 02:36 PM, Eric Auer wrote: > > Hi! > >> I'm quite surprised to notice that on average, the binaries produced by >> OW are twice as big as the same code compiled using Turbo C. > > Have you tried the usual stuff, such as avoiding heavier > constructs like file streams and printf formatters? There > might be some lighter alternative C libraries for OW as > well, but I remember that the FreeDOS kernel size is not > bad with OW - have a look at which compile switches that > uses and which library functions it avoids ;-) Note that > 16 vs 32 bit compile may make a big difference. > > Cheers, Eric ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Want fast and easy access to all the code in your enterprise? Index and search up to 200,000 lines of code with a free copy of Black Duck Code Sight - the same software that powers the world's largest code search on Ohloh, the Black Duck Open Hub! Try it now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bds _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
