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: 1996/06/29 Message-ID: <836045240.382.1@assen.demon.co.uk>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 162754839 x-nntp-posting-host: assen.demon.co.uk references: <31c8fdd4.5a455349@zesi.ruhr.de> <835637893.1349.0@assen.demon.co.uk> <835984668.12569.0@assen.demon.co.uk> <4r1hb5$e6m@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-06-29T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: fjh@mundook.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson) wrote: >>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? Because you're modifying the file that contains the executable code and you're risking the possibility of a bug in the 'strip' command that may remove something it shouldn't. This may be something that happens to be not fully tested on a large system. It's probably highly unlikely I know, but stranger things have happened. Best Regards John McCabe