Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>>>>> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > | Lars> We are not using those compilers to tune the binary size of lyx. | Lars> That is just as using a lyx compiled without optimization for | Lars> profiling. > | I do not think most people use gcc 3.x to compile lyx. And mind you, | the people wit `older' compilers are also the people who have older | hardware and would appreciate a small binary. And I am talking +50% | increase here, not a small drift.
You are also using a compiler that implements certain key features in a really bad way, and this causes the binary bloat. | You references compilers are (1) gcc 3.1 which was released a couple | weeks ago and (2) gcc 3.2 which is not released. Unless you plan lyx | 1.3.0 to be available in more than one year, this is not reasonable. Then compare with gcc 3.0. After all gcc 2.96 was never really released at all... (send a bug report to RedHat) As such... gcc 2.96 is probably the worst compiler to be used for any comparisons. -- Lgb