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,e9f27bbe0678fdfc
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: DELCOURT J�r�me <sikander@club-internet.fr>
Subject: Re: huge executable??
Date: 2000/05/15
Message-ID: <3920DA5B.2F56@club-internet.fr>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 623759574
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <391E09C3.FA04871E@mailandnews.com>
 <9EET4.760$pN4.423580@news.pacbell.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: front3m.grolier.fr 958422054 24869 195.36.141.142 (15 May 2000
 20:20:54 GMT)
Organization: Votre soci�t�
Mime-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: sikander@club-internet.fr
NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 May 2000 20:20:54 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-05-15T20:20:54+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

tmoran@bix.com wrote:
> 
> > why is the .EXE produced by Ada so much bigger?
>   It's not Ada, it's the particular compiler's run-time for the
> particular OS.  Your Hello program compiled to 67K with a different
> compiler.  Dropping the "with ada.text_io" and raising an unhandled
> "hello_world:exception" instead, that went down to 37K.  Looking at
> some old DOS .com programs in Ada, I find a 100 line one that
> HTML-izes a text file and compiles to 19K.  The same program,
> compiled to run under 32 bit Windows, is now 73K.
>   The more important question is, is size a problem with real
> programs that do something substantial.

I think that a reduced executable size is important, since that
allows a better use of the CPU cache memory, so that could improve
the speed of the program.

Concerning that problem, I suspect that, with GNAT, there is not
a good elimination of the unused code.

Sincerely, Jerome Delcourt