Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Negative effects of c++ in C |
| Date | 2016-11-22 15:55 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <87eg23y0ea.fsf@bsb.me.uk> (permalink) |
| References | <o1160t$a5q$1@dont-email.me> <87r363y4dh.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <o11md9$4jd$1@dont-email.me> |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > On 22/11/16 15:29, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes: >> >>> Since most C compilers are just c++ compilers that also compile C, >>> they generate all the tables needed for exception handling even if the >>> file is a C file. For instance in a moderately sized program (1.5MB) >>> fully >>> approx 100 000 bytes are just exception handling tables needed for c++ >>> even if the program is C only! >> >> That's not good. What ones? I don't recall ever seeing thing problem >> with a C compiler before, but I don't have access to most C >> compilers. (I see from elsewhere it's gcc so I could have seen the problem if I'd looked.) > You only see it on x86-64, and that is because it is a requirement of > the ABI. Ah, thank. I've obviously not been paying attention since I got an x86-64 system. > You can minimise the tables by using the -fno-unwind-tables > -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables flags. The code will work fine, as long > as you are not debugging. If you pass -g, I think those flags also work when debugging as the tables are then written into special debug sections. (This is just from a bit of searching done since the issue came up so take with a pinch of salt.) > And on *nix it rarely matters that there is extra data like this in an > executable file - those parts are typically not read in from files, so > they take no memory at run-time. And it seems you can save the file space by stripping them out post-compile if you like (strip -R). Again, not sure how reliable that information is but I tried it on a few programs with no ill-effects. It would appear not to be a very strong requirement of the ABI. -- Ben.
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Negative effects of c++ in C jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-22 11:18 +0100
Re: Negative effects of c++ in C Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-11-22 11:46 +0100
Re: Negative effects of c++ in C jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-22 14:48 +0100
Re: Big main() "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 21:51 +0800
Re: Negative effects of c++ in C Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-11-22 15:29 +0100
Re: Negative effects of c++ in C antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2016-11-22 15:09 +0000
Re: Negative effects of c++ in C jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-22 16:58 +0100
Re: Negative effects of c++ in C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-22 14:29 +0000
Re: Negative effects of c++ in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-22 15:58 +0100
Re: Negative effects of c++ in C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-22 15:55 +0000
Re: Negative effects of c++ in C jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-22 17:01 +0100
Re: Negative effects of c++ in C Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-11-22 18:32 +0100
Re: Negative effects of c++ in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-23 00:19 +0100
[OT] It's only words... :) "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 22:55 +0800
Re: [OT] It's only words... :) "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 22:57 +0800
Re: Negative effects of c++ in C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-23 08:43 +1300
Re: Negative effects of c++ in C jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-22 21:14 +0100
Re: Negative effects of c++ in C jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-22 21:17 +0100
Re: Negative effects of c++ in C rockbrentwood@gmail.com - 2016-11-23 15:41 -0800
Re: Negative effects of c++ in C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-23 16:19 -0800
Re: Negative effects of c++ in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-24 14:06 +0100
Re: Negative effects of c++ in C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-24 07:36 -0800
Re: Negative effects of c++ in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-25 00:23 +0100
Re: Negative effects of c++ in C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-25 09:42 -0800
Re: Negative effects of c++ in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-23 16:34 -0800
Re: Negative effects of c++ in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-24 14:55 +0100
csiph-web