code size latest snapshop versus 200206

[Till Straumann]

Joel Sherrill wrote:
> 
> Peter Mueller wrote:
> 
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>Hi,
>>
>>just finished the upgrade to the latest snapshot. I first checked the
>>application size. Here are the results:
>>
>>New:
>>m68k-rtems-size o-optimize/mp3.nxe
>>   text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
>> 278112    8448   18672  305232   4a850 o-optimize/mp3.nxe
>>
>>Old:
>>m68k-rtems-size ../mp3-mit-ss200206/o-optimize/mp3.nxe
>>   text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
>> 259296    5936   41840  307072   4af80
>>../mp3-mit-ss200206/o-optimize/mp3.nxe
>>
>>Any idea where the difference could come from?
> 
> 

> Here's a core dump of ideas.
> 
> The toolset version might have changed.  If this is a change from newlib
> 1.10.0 -> 1.11.0, then some reorganization might had hurt things. :(
> 
> Some file got more functionality.  That's a pretty hefty change though.
> 
> How do the sizes of minimum, hello, and ticker compare?
> 
> The next step is to look at a sorted symbol table and look for growth.
> That's what we usually do.
> 
> Which BSP is this?  The BSP could have introduced a new dependency
> unintentionally.
>

These are the numbers for hello.exe on a PowerPC (SVGM, derived from
shared) BSP:

ss-20020301:

     text	   data	    bss	    dec	    hex	filename
  138568	   4236	  18673	 161477	  276c5	samples/hello.exe

ss-20030128:

    text	   data	    bss	    dec	    hex	filename
  148820	   5332	  19205	 173357	  2a52d samples/hello.exe

-- Till

> 
>>Thanks
>>Peter
>>
>>- --
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
>>
>>iD8DBQE+XS/WUzCcwYQMTJoRAsZeAJ9fFxTPvKoHiMPcG7yvaEUlEmGwiACffHDG
>>cwhVbgnHF8qUqCQC0IN4tIk=
>>=Lrsk
>>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>