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,b16c9883f36bc904 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Laurent Guerby Subject: Re: WinNT ADA compilers comparison Date: 2000/07/26 Message-ID: <86zon5aio7.fsf@acm.org>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 650754485 References: <3976C68A.12386D00@cadwin.com> <8l7fff$9kb$1@front1.grolier.fr> <3A92E737.E690906A@free.fr> <3978041A.EB0F8FCE@cadwin.com> <8lcgbi$gvb$1@front5.grolier.fr> <397C03F9.AF6DF60F@cadwin.com> X-Trace: front4m.grolier.fr 964567690 13162 195.36.173.230 (25 Jul 2000 23:28:10 GMT) Organization: Club-Internet (France) NNTP-Posting-Date: 25 Jul 2000 23:28:10 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-07-25T23:28:10+00:00 List-Id: Nicolas Brunot writes: > [...] If you are concerned by executable size for example, even with > optimization and strip, for example, we get gnat executable size > incredibly huge in comparison even with old ADA83 compiler (40 Mo > instead of 8 Mo !!!) [...] Hmmm, do you have lots of generics? If the old compiler implements shared generics and given that GNAT doesn't, that could be a reason for the size difference. BTW, did you try "-Os"? It asks GCC to try to avoid optimizations that increase code size. Also, what is the platform here? -- Laurent Guerby