[Bug libgcc/98395] libgcc_s.so.1 almost 10x bigger in gcc-10.2 than gcc-9.2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98395 john.frankish at outlook dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID St

[Bug libgcc/98395] libgcc_s.so.1 almost 10x bigger in gcc-10.2 than gcc-9.2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98395 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5

[Bug libgcc/98395] libgcc_s.so.1 almost 10x bigger in gcc-10.2 than gcc-9.2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98395 --- Comment #4 from john.frankish at outlook dot com --- Both are stripped and all the other gcc libs are of comparable size between gcc-9.2 and gcc-10.2. I'll compile with -O2 instead of -Os in the next couple of days to see if that makes a diff

[Bug libgcc/98395] libgcc_s.so.1 almost 10x bigger in gcc-10.2 than gcc-9.2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98395 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3

[Bug libgcc/98395] libgcc_s.so.1 almost 10x bigger in gcc-10.2 than gcc-9.2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98395 --- Comment #2 from john.frankish at outlook dot com --- Something significant must have changed, or be wrong, for such a big increase in size

[Bug libgcc/98395] libgcc_s.so.1 almost 10x bigger in gcc-10.2 than gcc-9.2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98395 --- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab --- What does size tell?