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
