|
Another question about MAME 161: file size
#339695 - 05/06/15 10:29 PM
|
|
|
The official binary of MAME64.EXE has a file size of 94,199,808 bytes.
My compile using the updated dev tools and the source from git as a file size of 128,111,189 bytes.
Any idea what would be causing this difference? In the past, I've always gotten the same as the official binaries, but this time, I'm almost 36% greater.
thanks.
|
|
|
Stiletto |
|
They're always after me Lucky ROMS!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 03/07/04
|
|
Posts: 6472
|
|
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Another question about MAME 161: file size
[Re: Llaffer]
#339699 - 05/06/15 10:46 PM
|
|
|
> The official binary of MAME64.EXE has a file size of 94,199,808 bytes.
>
> My compile using the updated dev tools and the source from git as a file size of
> 128,111,189 bytes.
>
> Any idea what would be causing this difference? In the past, I've always gotten the
> same as the official binaries, but this time, I'm almost 36% greater.
>
> thanks.
Stripped symbols or lack thereof?
- Stiletto
|
|
|
|
Re: Another question about MAME 161: file size
[Re: Stiletto]
#339700 - 05/06/15 10:48 PM
|
|
|
If there is something more than "make", what additional commands are needed?
|
|
|
|
Re: Another question about MAME 161: file size
[Re: Llaffer]
#339709 - 05/07/15 12:32 AM
|
|
|
> If there is something more than "make", what additional commands are needed?
strip -s mame.exe (or whatever the name of your exe is)
or when compiling, add STRIP_SYMBOLS=1 to the make line.
|
|
|
|
Re: Another question about MAME 161: file size
[Re: Robbbert]
#339712 - 05/07/15 01:59 AM
|
|
|
Thanks. I'll try the strip command after I'm done recompiling them, then I'll try updating the make command tomorrow morning and trying another set of compiles using that.
|
|
|
|
Re: Another question about MAME 161: file size
[Re: Robbbert]
#339719 - 05/07/15 04:00 AM
|
|
|
> strip -s mame.exe (or whatever the name of your exe is)
>
> or when compiling, add STRIP_SYMBOLS=1 to the make line.
thanks.
|
MAME Stuff | MAME favorites | Bubble Bobble Series chart / wiki | PC configuration
|
|
|
Re: Another question about MAME 161: file size
[Re: Robbbert]
#339744 - 05/07/15 01:14 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Another question about MAME 161: file size
[Re: Ashura-X]
#339746 - 05/07/15 01:39 PM
|
|
|
> Itīs like UPX?
No, symbols are supposed to show which part of the program it crashed in, instead of just a bunch of numbers. For the normal user though, it's just extra bloat of no benefit. So, you strip them out.
|
|
|
|
Re: Another question about MAME 161: file size
[Re: Ashura-X]
#339761 - 05/07/15 07:55 PM
|
|
|
|
|
| R. Belmont |
|
Cuckoo for IGAvania
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 9716
|
|
Loc: ECV-197 The Orville
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Another question about MAME 161: file size
[Re: Robbbert]
#339790 - 05/08/15 04:51 PM
|
|
|
> > Itīs like UPX?
>
> No, symbols are supposed to show which part of the program it crashed in, instead of
> just a bunch of numbers. For the normal user though, it's just extra bloat of no
> benefit. So, you strip them out.
It's of no benefit until you get a one-off crash nobody's seen before and are unable to report anything useful because you stripped the symbols 
|
|
|
Previous 
Index 
Next 
Threaded 
Another question about MAME 161: file size
Reply
[Re: 
