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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,1bce3f54cf1cba1b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Theodore E. Dennison" Subject: Re: GNAT Executables: How low can you go? Date: 1996/04/19 Message-ID: <3177C65C.237C228A@escmail.orl.mmc.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 150364806 references: <4kmq7a$egm@fozzie.sun3.iaf.nl> <4l0o3s$hgt@utrhcs.cs.utwente.nl> <31742475.1CFBAE39@escmail.orl.mmc.com> <31765239.167EB0E7@escmail.orl.mmc.com> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: Lockheed Martin Information Systems mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.ada x-mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3_U1 sun4m) Date: 1996-04-19T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: 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 |