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: john@assen.demon.co.uk (John McCabe) Subject: Re: GNAT Codesize Date: 1996/06/24 Message-ID: <835637893.1349.0@assen.demon.co.uk>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 161881465 x-nntp-posting-host: assen.demon.co.uk references: <31c8fdd4.5a455349@zesi.ruhr.de> newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-06-24T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote: <..snip..> >You actually have no idea how big your program is, so your guess that >this is gnat inefficiency is incorrect. Undoubtedly you are building >with debugging information present, at least in the runtime library >routines. The debugging informatoin is typically MUCH larger than the >actual code. So strip the objects or executables (depending on your >system) if you want to make the executables smaller (but you won't >be able to debug the resulting program). By debugging information here are you referring to e.g. symbol tables and that kind of thing? If so, is it not possible to keep this information in a separate file akin to what embedded cross-development systems tend to use? Obviously this would involve a lot of work and I'm not suggesting that GNAT should be changed to behave like this, I'm just curious as I too noticed that the GNAT executable for a [small] program I wrote was more than 2x the size of an [functionally] identical program compiled with Meridian's DOS Ada compiler. Best Regards John McCabe