ML.EXE and Object File

[jdoe]

Hi,

I'm working on a static library and notice that the size of my .lib file was different depending on what version of MASM I was using. What I found is that the full path of all my .asm files are stored in the object file with the latest MASM 8.0 which make my static library to be 10k larger (52k --> 62k).

I tried to put ML.EXE in the path environment, use a @commandfile or anything that could gives to ML only the file name and not the full path but without success.

Code Select Expand



FOR %%A IN (*.ASM) DO (
  %BINPATH%\ML.EXE /c /coff /Cp /Gz /nologo %%~nxA
)

%BINPATH%\LINK.EXE -lib /NOLOGO /OUT:AZMT.LIB *.OBJ




Is it a known behavior of MASM 8.0 and is there a workaround ?

Thanks

[Vortex]

Sorry for my question but what's the problem with the overhead of 10Kb in your static library?

[jdoe]

Sorry for my question but what's the problem with the overhead of 10Kb in your static library?

I know 10k is no big deal but I'm planning to distribute this library and the real reason that I asked about this is not really the overhead (it was not clear in my previous post, sorry) is the information about my drive beeing included. It's not a big deal either but I personally don't like that.

I know after all that the problem is more a "ME" behavior. I'm used to stumble on the flowers of the carpet.   :P

[MichaelW]

For the final build could you put all of your asm files on a short path, say in the root directory?

[Tedd]

It's probably some extra symbol/debug information that's included - how to strip it out, or not include it in the first place, is another matter ::)

[Vortex]

Jdoe,

Masm object files are always containing a debug section with MS' copyright message. You should code a tool to remove this section.

[jdoe]

For the final build could you put all of your asm files on a short path, say in the root directory?

That would be the best workaround for sure.

Masm object files are always containing a debug section with MS' copyright message. You should code a tool to remove this section.

If I do that, I will see myself as insane.  :P


As you all see, I don't have a long background using Microsoft binaries and I was asking just in case I missed some informations. I'm gonna live with it.


Thanks you all for your comments.

[hutch--]

jdoe,

I would not be afraid to supply a library that is a bit bigger than ones built with object modules from ealier masm version as in the final target there is no differnce in size. I actually keep te facilities avaiable to use any masm version from 6.14 to 8.0 and in most instances I cannot tell the difference. When I build libraries I usually use the old 6.14 as it is supplied in the masm32 project.

[Vortex]

jdoe,

Did you try to use PoAsm? Does it make it a difference?

[jdoe]

Vortex,

Thanks for your idea but PoAsm is not fully compatible with MASM syntax and thats why I'm not using it for the moment. If it was, I think I would be a user.