On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 02:11:55PM +0200, Martin Husemann wrote: > On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 02:06:55PM +0200, Thomas Klausner wrote: > > Actually, that is the size of mame stripped, so yes, I need this bigger :) > > The unstripped code size should not be bigger, symbols are a separate > (non loadable) section. > > > Should we bump it in general? > > Don't think so (but also don't really care). > > Could this be a toolchain issue or compiler flags gone wrong?
I don't think so, mame just has been growing. Same environment/settings/...: mame-0.224: -rwxr-xr-x 0 root wheel 281092984 Sep. 20 19:13 bin/mame mame-0.225: -rwxr-xr-x 0 root wheel 281511096 Sep. 30 11:13 bin/mame Thomas
