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,FREEMAIL_FROM, INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,e9f27bbe0678fdfc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: David Dousette Subject: Re: huge executable?? Date: 2000/05/14 Message-ID: <391F0851.C23985A@mailandnews.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 623366826 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <391E09C3.FA04871E@mailandnews.com> <391F102C.26ED7310@maths.unine.ch> X-Accept-Language: en Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: abuse@onemain.com X-Trace: nntp2.onemain.com 958338606 216.80.155.15 (Sun, 14 May 2000 17:10:06 EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 17:10:06 EDT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-05-14T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: I used Pacific C for DOS... seems like I did one a while back in Watcom 11, too, and it wasn't much bigger or smaller. I didn't think to try it with GCC... but what is it about GCC and GNAT that causes that much of an increase? Just the static linking? I'm not sure what Pacific C or Watcom used, and GNAT is the only Ada compiler I've messed with... I guess I could download the Aonix compiler for Win98 and see if I get similar results out of it on my other machine. Gautier wrote: > With wich compiler did you compile your C program ? The 5,000 bytes seem > rather from some 16-bit Turbo C. With GCC it would be (logarithmically) > nearer to 126,000 bytes... > > _____________________________________________ > Gautier -- http://members.xoom.com/gdemont/