which version of strip are you using?

[Roberto A. Foglietta]

As you can see TC executable are very very stripped, what are you using to do that If you are using sstrip from busybox I think you should include sstrip into tcbase's busybox.     

Code: [Select]

tc@box:~/downloads/wbar-1.3.3$ ls -al /usr/bin/wbar
-rwxr-xr-x    1 root     root        41716 Apr  9 09:31 /usr/bin/wbar
tc@box:~/downloads/wbar-1.3.3$ ls -al wbar
-rwxr-xr-x    1 tc       staff       66520 Apr 10 00:07 wbar
tc@box:~/downloads/wbar-1.3.3$ size /usr/bin/wbar
   text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
      0       0       0       0       0 /usr/bin/wbar
tc@box:~/downloads/wbar-1.3.3$ size wbar
   text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
  63819     776     504   65099    fe4b wbar


[Juanito]

strip is included in the compiletc extension - it also seems like more and more packages accept "make install-strip".

[mikshaw]

but is that the same strip that was used in TC base?  I think that was the question.

[Roberto A. Foglietta]

but is that the same strip that was used in TC base?  I think that was the question.

yes that was the question because the strip included into compiletc does not do the same job of those used to make .iso content

[curaga]

Yes, it was the regular GNU strip. The reason why you don't get as small binaries lies in the optimization, for example try adding the "-Os" (optimize for size) to your CFLAGS before running configure.

[Juanito]

..but be aware that using "-Os" causes some compile runs to fail and the error messages do not indicate that "-Os" was the cause of the failure...

[Roberto A. Foglietta]

Yes, it was the regular GNU strip. The reason why you don't get as small binaries lies in the optimization, for example try adding the "-Os" (optimize for size) to your CFLAGS before running configure.

Regular 'strip' nor '-Os' give out a '0 0 0 0' when 'size' is called!