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: 1996/07/02 Message-ID: <836339491.14712.0@assen.demon.co.uk>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 163351658 x-nntp-posting-host: assen.demon.co.uk references: <31c8fdd4.5a455349@zesi.ruhr.de> <835637893.1349.0@assen.demon.co.uk> <4r1806$aci@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-07-02T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: fjh@mundook.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson) wrote: <..snip..> >and (e) it would be irritating; simple commands like `cp foo foo.old' > or `rm foo' would not be sufficient, and more complicated > commands would have to be used instead. On the other hand, when you've finished debugging and want to provide an official release, you only have to copy a single file rather than having to strip it of debugging information first. It works both ways really, I think the only real advantage either method has is the one Robert Dewar mentioned about being compatible with system standards (although I'd be grateful if he'd enlighten us on exactly what he means by that phrase). Best Regards John McCabe