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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,6575b47ba54cee7c
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: gautier_niouzes@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Reducing the size of executables produced by GNAT
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 06:50:50 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <55615149-d07d-4205-91d1-885a4ba9f035@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <40e9c01a-8d31-4554-9d9b-18cce7834d56@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.122.158.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1202914250 21731 127.0.0.1 (13 Feb 2008 14:50:50
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:50:50 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com; posting-host=206.122.158.4;
	posting-account=gRqrnQkAAAAC_02ynnhqGk1VRQlve6ZG
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1;
 .NET
	CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; InfoPath.1),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19770
Date: 2008-02-13T06:50:50-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Hibou57:

> So GNAT = big-big binaries : is it a rule ?

Short answer: the fixed cost is big, but if your source grows beyond
"Hello world", the binary growth is very decent, of course with the
appropriate options.
Long answer: see newsgroups archives!

HTH, G.