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: 103376,344332f209947007
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@gnat.com
Subject: Re: Gnat Executable Size
Date: 1998/10/14
Message-ID: <700rfc$6h4$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 400789168
References: <6volj0$250$1@uuneo.neosoft.com> <3620F843.39465221@home.com>
 <3621E42C.2920@Entenhausen.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x13.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14
Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Oct 14 00:32:44 1998 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/2.02 (OS/2; I)
Date: 1998-10-14T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <3621E42C.2920@Entenhausen.net>,
  Donald.Duck@Entenhausen.net wrote:
> As far as I understand, the comparison was _not_ between Ada and M2, but
> between GNAT and any other compiler. What is true is, that the GNAT code
> is bigger than code from other (even other Ada) compilers. For your
> comparison you have to add the size of the EMX runtime also.

First, the EMX runtime is relevant only to the OS/2 version among the
officially supported versions of GNAT, so that seems a bit of an odd
thing to mention.

Second, we occasionally get notes of this kind, and in 100% of cases, they
have turned out to be based on apples-vs-oranges comparisons. The differences
come from many bogus sources:

  unoptimized vs optimized code
  debugging information not stripped
  non-comparable programs
  statically vs dynamically linked libraries
  etc.

After a while it is hardly worth following up each case!

Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own