[Info-vax] x86-64 VMS executable image sizes and memory requirements ?

[John Reagan]

On Thursday, December 19, 2019 at 7:33:23 AM UTC-5, osuv... at gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, December 19, 2019 at 5:26:59 AM UTC-5, Simon Clubley wrote:
> > On 2019-12-18, John Reagan <xyzzy1959 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > We're building everything NOOPTIMIZE so it isn't worth looking at.
> > >
> > > That said, 
> > >
> > > EDTSHR.EXE, Alpha, optimized: 493 blocks on disk, 179,712 bytes of code
> > > EDTSHR.EXE, Itanium, optimized: 724 blocks on disk, 302,960 bytes of code
> > > EDTSHR.EXE, x86, NOT optimized: 589 blocks on disk, 227,120 bytes of code
> > >
> > 
> > Thanks, John.
> > 
> > I'm amused that x86 not optimised is better than Itanium optimised. :-)
> > 
> > Code density on Alpha is lousy compared to VAX and from what I could tell
> > from reading the Itanium manuals, Itanium appeared to have even worse
> > code density.
> 
> My experience with the C compiler is that optimized code is often larger than
> unoptimized, depending upon what you are optimizing.
> 

That's probably true in many cases.  Routine inlining, loop unrolling, etc. all result in larger code footprint while still making the program run faster.