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: 103376,344332f209947007
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Niklas Holsti <nholsti@icon.fi>
Subject: Re: Gnat Executable Size
Date: 1998/10/11
Message-ID: <362091CF.594AA72D@icon.fi>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 399908882
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <6volj0$250$1@uuneo.neosoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: Space Systems Finland Ltd
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-10-11T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Robert B. Love wrote:
> 
> Over in the Modula-2 newsgroup somebody was asking about free compilers.
> Another person pointed out GNAT as suitable for his task and free.
> Ada vs. M2 wasn't the issue.  The original poster said he'd tried GNAT
> on a simple "hello world" program and was surprised to see a 200K
> executable.  Others said their favorite M2 compiler yielded about 10K
> executables for this.
> 
> I tried a simple Put_Line program myself with GNAT under Linux and
> got an 84K program.  I've played with Pragma Optimze(Space) and
> Pragma Supress (All_Checks) but it stays about  84K.
> 
> I then run strip on the GNAT generated executable and get it down to
> about 47K.
> 
> How small can GNAT get "Hello World"?  What compiler options and pragmas
> would you use for this?

On my i486 Slackware Linux 2.0.0, GNAT 3.05 generates an executable
for Put_Line("Hello world!") of 22842 bytes (not stripped) or 10400
bytes (stripped). Compiler options were "-c -g". Seems comparable
to the M2 sizes. Source code below.

- Niklas

with Text_IO;
procedure HELLO is
begin
   Text_IO.Put_Line ("Hello world!");
end HELLO;