Very Computer

I just noticed the 3M size difference between pine 3.91 and pine 3.94
that I just compiled:  

lrwxrwxrwx   1 root     bin             8 Jun 24 14:45 pine -> pine.394*
-rwxr-xr-x   1 root     bin        863492 Aug 22  1995 pine.391*
-rwxr-xr-x   2 root     bin       3968661 Jun 24 14:38 pine.394*

I guess this is ok, since I looked at the size of the binaries on your
ftp server and it is about the same size.

-rwxrwxr-x  1 172      0         3925407 Jun 12 17:05 pine-bin.linux

I am just curious though, how much of a performance hit is this new 4M
pine binary versus the older 865K binary?

Thanks,

Kenn Herman

Also - i fixed my 'no room to write file' error mesage i was
getting...Turns out the pine binary needs to be owned by bin, and I had it
owned root.

-dave

--

http://ginch.dial.umd.edu/
software is cheap fast and reliable (pick two).
All day, everyday, chasing doughnuts up a hill.
RIP: Freedom of Speech.  1776-1996.  It was good while it lasted.

Your pine.391 binary is stripped and your pine.394 binary is not stripped.
The overwhelming majority of the difference in size is due to debugging
symbols in the non-stripped version.   Pine is built with symbols.

This should not affect the size of the running Pine image.  Symbols are
not part of the running image.  The only cost is approximately 75 cents of
disk space.

If you really want to make your pine.394 binary smaller, do:
        strip pine.394

Be advised that if you do this and one of your users experiences a Pine
crash, the core dump will probably be next to useless and your user will
probably be told "sorry, we don't know why it crashed and we can't find
out."

Quote:> I just noticed the 3M size difference between pine 3.91 and pine 3.94
> that I just compiled:  

> lrwxrwxrwx   1 root     bin             8 Jun 24 14:45 pine -> pine.394*
> -rwxr-xr-x   1 root     bin        863492 Aug 22  1995 pine.391*
> -rwxr-xr-x   2 root     bin       3968661 Jun 24 14:38 pine.394*

> I guess this is ok, since I looked at the size of the binaries on your
> ftp server and it is about the same size.

> -rwxrwxr-x  1 172      0         3925407 Jun 12 17:05 pine-bin.linux

> I am just curious though, how much of a performance hit is this new 4M
> pine binary versus the older 865K binary?

> Thanks,

> Kenn Herman

DoD #0105, R90/6 pilot, FAX: (206) 685-4045  ICBM: N 47 39'35" W 122 18'39"
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.