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,b16c9883f36bc904 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "G. de Montmollin" Subject: Re: WinNT ADA compilers comparison Date: 2000/07/25 Message-ID: <397DC549.250331FF@maths.unine.ch>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 650603933 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <3976C68A.12386D00@cadwin.com> <8l7fff$9kb$1@front1.grolier.fr> <3A92E737.E690906A@free.fr> <3978041A.EB0F8FCE@cadwin.com> <8lcgbi$gvb$1@front5.grolier.fr> <397C03F9.AF6DF60F@cadwin.com> X-Accept-Language: en Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: 25 Jul 2000 18:50:18 +0100, mac13-32.unine.ch Organization: Maths - Uni =?iso-8859-1?Q?Neuch=E2tel?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-07-25T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Nicolas Brunot wrote: > If you are concerned by executable size for example, even with optimization and > strip, for example, we get gnat executable size incredibly huge in comparison > even with old ADA83 compiler (40 Mo instead of 8 Mo !!!) Strange - it ressembles to the GNAT / Alsys ratio on large projects... But: did you apply the -gnatp option ? The mass of code generated by GNAT (an generally by GCC), even with effective optimisations, stripping etc., still intrigues me. Of course, basically GCC was surely developed in a protected world with Unix stations having "unlimited" storage, and without commercial worries, but does anyone know what is all that stuffing ?... ______________________________________________________ Gautier -- http://members.xoom.com/gdemont/gsoft.htm