- Community Home
- >
- Servers and Operating Systems
- >
- Operating Systems
- >
- Operating System - HP-UX
- >
- Re: executable size 4 times greater than in linux
Categories
Company
Local Language
Forums
Discussions
Forums
- Data Protection and Retention
- Entry Storage Systems
- Legacy
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- Storage Networking
- HPE Nimble Storage
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
Forums
Forums
Discussions
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
- BladeSystem Infrastructure and Application Solutions
- Appliance Servers
- Alpha Servers
- BackOffice Products
- Internet Products
- HPE 9000 and HPE e3000 Servers
- Networking
- Netservers
- Secure OS Software for Linux
- Server Management (Insight Manager 7)
- Windows Server 2003
- Operating System - Tru64 Unix
- ProLiant Deployment and Provisioning
- Linux-Based Community / Regional
- Microsoft System Center Integration
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Community
Resources
Forums
Blogs
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-07-2009 02:58 PM
тАО01-07-2009 02:58 PM
I just wanted to know that why are hp ux binaries bigger in size? I have red hat linux and hp pa-risc machine and all the binaries are 4 times that of linux. I have done strip on all the binaries for both linux and hp ux.
Can someone assist me on this -- whether something is fixed in hp to be of greater size than actually be utilized i.e. code, data, stack or bss etc?
Any help in this matter would be greatly appreciated.
Best regards,
Raj
Solved! Go to Solution.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-07-2009 03:29 PM
тАО01-07-2009 03:29 PM
Re: executable size 4 times greater than in linux
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-07-2009 07:18 PM
тАО01-07-2009 07:18 PM
Re: executable size 4 times greater than in linux
What does size(1) show for you on HP-UX vs linux?
Note: That Integrity may be another 2 X bigger than PA.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-08-2009 06:35 AM
тАО01-08-2009 06:35 AM
Re: executable size 4 times greater than in linux
Yes I have checked with the size command -- Here are my analysis on the portable code binaries.
On suse linux the size command gives this.
-----------------
suse01> size cr_api
14724952(text)
919444(data)
239856(bss)
15884252= 15 MB (dec)
f25fdc (hex)
cr_api.linux (filename)
14 mb TEXT SIZE
-----------------
hpparisc>size cr_api
23738645 + 4586336 + 188380 = (total)28513361 = 27 MB
22 MB TEXT
-----------------
Total difference in text size is 8 MB which is almost the main difference.
Can you let me know how to reduce the text size -- I have tried using -O for optimization on space but doesn't give anything.
strip is run on both the binaries.
For hp my compile and link flags are this using aCC
CSPEC_COPTS = +Z +DAportable -L.
-L$(BUILD_DIR) -AA -O2 -mt -DCR_BIG_ENDIAN -DCR_INLINE_NOT_SUPPORTED -D_LARGEFILE64_SOURCE
CSPEC_LOPTS = +DAportable -Wl,+s -L. -L$(BUILD_DIR) -AA -mt -lm -lsec -lpthread
Best regards,
Raj
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-08-2009 06:39 AM
тАО01-08-2009 06:39 AM
Re: executable size 4 times greater than in linux
Why do you care whether a binary for one architecture is larger or smaller than a binary executable for another?
What matters to me is optimization at runtime together with clarity and maintainablity of the source.
Regards!
...JRF...
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-08-2009 07:40 AM
тАО01-08-2009 07:40 AM
Re: executable size 4 times greater than in linux
Ok fine i will do with the optimization and clarity but i just wanted to know why is the size different -- can i do some steps to reduce the text(code) size?
This will help me in making my installer smaller which is the main reason.
Where is the size increasing, what can i do to decrease it?
Best regards,
Raja
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-08-2009 11:16 AM
тАО01-08-2009 11:16 AM
SolutionWhy? Text size is free. Only data matters, especially if you have lots of users of the program.
The increase of instructions is related to PA-RISC vs CISC.
Also using -AA may bloat it with templates.
>This will help me in making my installer smaller which is the main reason.
Does it fit on a CD?
>Where is the size increasing, what can I do to decrease it?
Basically you are asking something that has no easy answers. I suppose you could use nm(1) and look at the sizes of each function.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-09-2009 03:13 AM
тАО01-09-2009 03:13 AM
Re: executable size 4 times greater than in linux
Ok settled -- it has to do something with the RISC architecture but what's the thing with intel itanium binaries being even bigger?
Does it have even bigger instruction set than RISC
Cheers,
Raja
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО01-09-2009 07:19 AM
тАО01-09-2009 07:19 AM
Re: executable size 4 times greater than in linux
Yes, each instruction bundle is 128 bits. And if not optimized, lots of NOPs.
But the size of data should be the similar to PA's.
Also objects and executables contain lots more fluff.