Re: GNAT Executables: How low can you go?

["Theodore E. Dennison" <dennison@escmail.orl.mmc.com>]

Robert Dewar wrote:
> 
> Ted, you missed it again!!!!
> 
> The point is that DLL's are valuable even if the applications do NOT
> run simultaneously. Read my paragraph again, the key word is successive,
> i.e. non-simultaneous!

Ahhh.

So you are saying that when all its applications terminate, the DLL 
isn't nessecarily unloaded? That's clever. Although in practice, I'd
bet it gets unloaded or swapped out pretty quickly. You can't just
keep every DLL that ever got opened since the machine was booted in
memory forever; you'd run out of memory space pretty quickly.

However, this would make DLLs a very good approach for running a 
series of executables that all use a lot of the same routines (eg:
the "unix-like" commands that were mentioned previously in this thread,
with the GNAT runtime in a DLL).

I sense an "Emily Latella" comming on.
(What's all this I hear about "Firing the Handicapped"?)
-- 
T.E.D.          
                |  Work - mailto:dennison@escmail.orl.mmc.com  |
                |  Home - mailto:dennison@iag.net              |
                |  URL  - http://www.iag.net/~dennison         |