Re: [LI] size

[Sharad Joshi <sharadj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, 5 Dec 1999, Arun Sharma wrote:

+ On Mon, Dec 06, 1999 at 09:51:44AM +0530, Sharad Joshi wrote:
+ > 
+ > Ok, here is it. Sorry, i did not mention that in the first mail. Another
+ > point was, if that was in bytes, why so much discrepency in the number of
+ > bytes shown by 'ls -l' and 'size'.
+ 
+ It's a constant overhead due to ELF headers. If you increase the size of
+ the text/data sections (as is typical for a Linux executable), the overhead 
+ becomes negligible.

I guessed that. But did not know that the "overhead" was so large. In some
cases (even in the case of "big" .o's in the range of 20k) this "overhead"
is almost 30-35%. Interesting stats. 'Think i'll have to dig into d-tails
of binary formats for more info.

+ 
+ When you save the file, ext2fs is going to allocate a disk block
+ anyway. Instead of leaving the rest of the block empty, you've put some
+ useful stuff in there :)
+ 

yeah, right. Thanks for the help 'run :).

Sharad.
~~~~~~~~

--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Linux India Mailing List Archives are now available.  Please search
the archive at http://lists.linux-india.org/ before posting your question
to avoid repetition and save bandwidth.