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: 103376,6ff6ac051491e437 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: fjh@mundook.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson) Subject: Re: GNAT Codesize Date: 1996/06/28 Message-ID: <4r1hb5$e6m@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 162645375 references: <31c8fdd4.5a455349@zesi.ruhr.de> <835637893.1349.0@assen.demon.co.uk> <835984668.12569.0@assen.demon.co.uk> organization: Comp Sci, University of Melbourne newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-06-28T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: john@assen.demon.co.uk (John McCabe) writes: >dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote: > >>Yes, exactly, symbol table type information. Yes you could keep it in >>a separate file, but > >>(a) it would not save any disk space to have two files instead of one > >Good point, however there would be the advantage that when you wanted >to ditch it, you just have to delete the symbol file without touching >the executable. Why would that be an advantage? What's wrong with just using the `strip' command? >>(b) you don't load the symbol information, so it would not save load time > >But don't you still have to decide which bits to load and not to load? >If you didn't have to make that decision, there presumably would be >some [probably unnoticeable] reduction in the load time. I don't think so. All decent modern systems do demand-loading, so they don't load the entire executable at once anyway. They just load each page as it is needed. In any case, as you note, any overhead here would be insignificant. -- Fergus Henderson | "I have always known that the pursuit WWW: | of excellence is a lethal habit" PGP: finger fjh@128.250.37.3 | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.