From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!seas.gwu.edu!mfeldman
From: mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Reducing size of Ada's EXE files
Keywords: EXE size
Message-ID: <3066@sparko.gwu.edu>
Date: 16 Apr 91 19:12:10 GMT
References: <437@wrdis01.af.mil> <1991Apr12.235101.7245@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov> <1991Apr15.094702@riddler.Berkeley.EDU>
Reply-To: mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu ()
Organization: The George Washington University, Washington D.C.
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <1991Apr15.094702@riddler.Berkeley.EDU> yow@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>
>What I would like to see is the SHARING of generic code, not this macro
>expansion that takes place in compilers.  I wrote my own dynamic generic
>because the generic code was about 20K (object code size) and the
>generic was used 50+ times on a PC (640K limit).  This would never work
>with the marco expansion because the program would be over 1 meg just
>for the generics!!! (:-()
>
Indeed. But code-sharing in generics is a separate issue from throwing
away dead code. Are you saying that _everything_ in the generic was used
50+ times? Wouldn't throwing away the dead code at least get rid of
some of the extra stuff?

I wonder if folks out there in net-land could check their favorite compiler
documentation and ascertain the general kinds of global optimizations
done. A general summary of compiler families in this regard would be
helpful to all concerned. I'll take responsibility of summarizing, though
I think your answers would be better posted than e-mailed to me.

Does your system code-share generics?
Does your system throw away dead code?

Mike