Re: linking surprise...

[Al Riddoch <ajr@ecs.soton.ac.uk>]

On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 03:12:26PM +0200, Christian Henz wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 01:49:56PM +0100, Al Riddoch wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 01:33:31PM +0200, Christian Henz wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 11:50:00AM +0100, Al Riddoch wrote:
> > > > Could you tell me what version of gcc you are using? May not be relevant,
> > > > but I'd like to know.
> > > > 
> > > I'm using gcc 2.5.4. 
> > > 
> > 
> > Are you sure? That sounds like a version from about 1992. Its more likely
> > that its 2.95.4.
> > 
> Whoops, that was a typo, its 2.95.4 of course!
> 
> > If you still have the binaries around could you run ldd on them, and post
> > the results?
> > 
> 
> Here it comes:
> 

Thanks.

This is quite puzzling. I can't work out any reason why the second
binary should be smaller, unless the object files for the second one were
rebuilt with different optimisation flags.

Al

PGP signature