Executable size comparison for different targets.

Here is a size comparison of compiling bzip2 for different targets using the
ELLCC clang/LLVM based cross development tool chain (http://ellcc.org):

     -target Endian Float
armeb-linux-engeabi Big Soft
armeb-linux-engeabihf Big Hard
arm-linux-engeabi Little Soft
arm-linux-engeabihf Little Hard
i386-linux-eng Little Hard
mipsel-linux-eng Little Hard
mipsel-linux-engsf Little Soft
mips-linux-eng Big Hard
mips-linux-engsf Big Soft
ppc-linux-eng Big Hard
x86_64-linux-eng Little Hard

/ellcc/test/src/bzip2-1.0.6] dev% size bzip2*-linux-*
    text data bss dec hex filename
  177316 3632 7828 188776 2e168 bzip2.armeb-linux-engeabi
  170356 3632 7828 181816 2c638 bzip2.armeb-linux-engeabihf
  177332 3632 7828 188792 2e178 bzip2.arm-linux-engeabi
  170364 3632 7828 181824 2c640 bzip2.arm-linux-engeabihf
  156750 3620 7812 168182 290f6 bzip2.i386-linux-eng
  314676 3632 7820 326128 4f9f0 bzip2.microblaze-linux-eng
  205476 3656 7900 217032 34fc8 bzip2.mipsel-linux-eng
  213608 3656 7900 225164 36f8c bzip2.mipsel-linux-engsf
  205492 3656 7900 217048 34fd8 bzip2.mips-linux-eng
  213632 3656 7900 225188 36fa4 bzip2.mips-linux-engsf
  180680 3632 7828 192140 2ee8c bzip2.ppc-linux-eng
  164482 3992 8640 177114 2b3da bzip2.x86_64-linux-eng

Soft float adds about 7K to the size of the executable compared to its
hard float counterpart, which sounds about right. These executables are
all statically linked with musl and compiler-rt. A dynamically linked executable
for x86_64 looks like this:

[~/ellcc/test/src/bzip2-1.0.6] dev% size bzip2
    text data bss dec hex filename
  120131 4176 4400 128707 1f6c3 bzip2

-Rich