Re: huge executable??

[Gautier <gautier.demontmollin@maths.unine.ch>]

> > 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.

Robert Dewar:

> You are assuming that size of executable is directly related
> to the working set in cache.

If it is not directly related, it does not mean that is not related
at all! It depends on the granularity of the cache...

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

> Elimination of unused code will most certainly reduce executable
> size but it won't help one bit in reducing cache pressure, since
> obviously unused code never gets into the cache during
> execution.

Again you suppose that the cache granularity is so small that
the cache will only contain bytes of executed code and not parts
of the adjacent code. Is it really the case ? I have serious doubts!

> Basically the issue here boils down to disk costs alone. Seeing
> as 128K bytes is approximately $0.004 worth of disk space, I
> don't see this as a big worry these days :-)

You forget the Internet transmission times, that are now as much
if not more important. And whatever the cost of storage people
are sometimes curious about "the loads of bloatware" that end in
an .exe, especially if it comes from an Ada compiler! 

_____________________________________________
Gautier  --  http://members.xoom.com/gdemont/