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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC 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: Donald Duck <Donald.Duck@Entenhausen.net>
Subject: Re: Gnat Executable Size
Date: 1998/10/12
Message-ID: <3621E42C.2920@Entenhausen.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 400198770
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <6volj0$250$1@uuneo.neosoft.com> <3620F843.39465221@home.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: Siemens Inc.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: Donald.Duck@Entenhausen.net
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-10-12T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

As far as I understand, the comparison was _not_ between Ada and M2, but
between GNAT and any other compiler. What is true is, that the GNAT code
is bigger than code from other (even other Ada) compilers. For your
comparison you have to add the size of the EMX runtime also.
 

Bryce Bardin wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
> This is a naive view of program size.  The size of executables depend on