Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view

FreeBasic and FreePascal (Developers)

posted by nickysn(R), 21.08.2014, 10:11

> > I don't have even the slightest clue what you're referring to. But the
> > Internet is full of all types of cranks (ahem, comments on every YouTube
> > video ever), so it's probably just normal everyday angst. Don't sweat
> the
> > small stuff.
> Some people are simply oversensitive.
> Oh, and he apparently missed the post with the fpc 16-bit results:
> Using last fall's 16-bit snapshot (tiny memory model:)
> D:\pp16>file
> DOS executable (COM)
> D:\pp16>dir
> 07/04/2014 10:49 16,528

Current trunk is even better:

Hello world sizes in different memory models:

tiny (.com): 13978 bytes
tiny (.exe): 14266 bytes
small: 14190 bytes
medium: 18608 bytes
compact: 20090 bytes
large: 24780 bytes

fpctris sizes:

tiny (.com): 40660 bytes
tiny (.exe): 40948 bytes
small: 40868 bytes
medium: 50034 bytes
compact: 50144 bytes
large: 59598 bytes

And, of course, they will only get even smaller as the 16-bit code generator (and rtl) improves. I know it's still larger than TP7, but in terms of executable sizes, it's already pretty competitive to 16-bit C compilers such as Borland C. That being said, I don't see your patches that improve binary sizes. If, instead of working on the 16-bit target in the past year, I had complained on the forums that FPC does not support 16-bit DOS, everybody would have laughed at me and this target wouldn't exist.

> Rugxulo: -O3 won't do much on a program that only contains one statement
> (writeln('hello world');)
You probably have to compile the RTL also with -O3 in order to see its effect. There's also whole program optimization, which can further improve executable sizes:


Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
15296 Postings in 1378 Threads, 254 registered users, 12 users online (0 registered, 12 guests)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum