Compiling same source but resulting in different file sizes

[OldSchoolGamer]

This may sound like a dumb question for some of yous, but I always wondered...

Two different trustworthy people/websites compiling a source to create an executable file. But the file size is not identical... it's off by just a tiny bit (a few bytes). Why does that happen? (and no, there's no malware in any of the files)

[dnawrkshp]

I may be wrong but I'd assume that they are not using the exact same compiler. A newer compiler may be more efficient than its previous version(s). That is just a guess though.

[lee4]

Two different trustworthy people/websites compiling a source to create an executable file. But the file size is not identical... it's off by just a tiny bit (a few bytes).

can you post links to these "trustworthy people/websites"?

[ReyVGM]

lol

[OldSchoolGamer]

can you post links to these "trustworthy people/websites"?

I see this many times with files. Okay, I will use the FCEUX SVN builds as an example. The file size of EmuCR's and Try2EMU's builds of FCEUX 2.2.2 (SVN 2965) are nearly a 1.5 MB difference. Those two websites always have a significant difference in file size of their compiled FCEUX SVN builds.

Try2EMU - File size of FCEUX.exe = 1.05 MB
http://www.t2e.pl/pl/406/134/406/Bet...UX-222-SVN2965

EmuCR - File size of FCEUX.exe = 2.63 MB
http://www.emucr.com/2013/06/fceux-svn-r2965.html

[Pyriel]

You'll have to ask them how they compiled it. For the file sizes to be that far apart, they're most likely building it very differently. It's possible EmuCR's build has some extra options enabled, they embed required DLLs, or they just release a build with debugging symbols, etc., etc. The reverse could also be true. EmuCR's is more standard, and Try2EMU provides a more stripped-down build.

[Helder]

Compressed executables?

[OldSchoolGamer]

It's possible EmuCR's build has some extra options enabled, they embed required DLLs, or they just release a build with debugging symbols, etc., etc. The reverse could also be true.

No, it doesn't have embedded required DLLs, because the zip file includes them. And the DLLs file sizes are not large enough to make up 1.5 MB.

EmuCR's is more standard, and Try2EMU provides a more stripped-down build.

No it's not stripped down because the official FCEUX website's executable is about the same file size as Try2EMU's, (which is the smaller of the two files.) So, it appears that Try2EMU's file is more "accurate" to the official one. So that means that EmuCR must be adding something to theirs or doing something different.

Compressed executables?

Both of them do not have a smaller size than the official website's FCEUX.exe. So they can't be compressed.

[Pyriel]

Those were just possibilities, offered with only faint hope that any of them would be correct, and only to illustrate that none of us is likely to know without developing clairvoyant powers. You apparently passed over the crucial bit where you'd have to ask somebody who actually knows. They could be doing something stupid, like compiling in a megabyte and a half of extra icons, or an MP3 file. There's no reason to tell me I'm wrong about that because we can just keep making random guesses forever.

[lee4]

both emulators compliled different

It's possible EmuCR's build has some extra options enabled, they embed required DLLs, or they just release a build with debugging symbols, etc., etc. The reverse could also be true.

No, it doesn't have embedded required DLLs, because the zip file includes them. And the DLLs file sizes are not large enough to make up 1.5 MB.

how you would know.

[OldSchoolGamer]

Those were just possibilities, offered with only faint hope that any of them would be correct, and only to illustrate that none of us is likely to know without developing clairvoyant powers. You apparently passed over the crucial bit where you'd have to ask somebody who actually knows. They could be doing something stupid, like compiling in a megabyte and a half of extra icons, or an MP3 file. There's no reason to tell me I'm wrong about that because we can just keep making random guesses forever.

I wasn't trying to say you were wrong. I was trying to narrow down the possibilities through a process of elimination. I appreciated your response. (If we were having this discussion in person, you wouldn't have taken any slight offense or whatever, as the tone/intention/etc. of conversation online can be difficult to know... as no ill will was intended)

[OldSchoolGamer]

lol

?? was that because its another one of my curious george questions... or was it towards someone else?

[Pyriel]

I'm not offended. I'm just making the point that process of elimination seems seriously inefficient here, if you can e-mail one of the websites and ask what they're doing.

They're clearly building the EXE differently somehow. The SVN might tell, if there are options that can be switched in the build script(s), but otherwise, it's difficult to tell without seeing their scripts. I doubt anyone will feel like disassembling the thing, or checking various possibilities with other tools.

[rimsky82]

The smaller executable was compressed using upx. If you examined the source you'd see that the vc directory has an archive.bat that calls upx, as well as upx.exe itself.

The website upping the larger file isn't using that batch file, or upx at all, so it's not being compressed.

[ReyVGM]

?? was that because its another one of my curious george questions... or was it towards someone else?

How lee4 quoted your "trustworthy people/websites". It was funny.