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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,6575b47ba54cee7c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder3.cambrium.nl!feeder5.cambrium.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!not-for-mail From: Ludovic Brenta Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Reducing the size of executables produced by GNAT References: <40e9c01a-8d31-4554-9d9b-18cce7834d56@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com> <47b300d3$1@news.post.ch> <9c0a949b-ce82-4eda-99c9-02aace675266@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <47B3523D.6030302@obry.net> Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 00:35:20 +0100 Message-ID: <87zlu4zayv.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:VftK+dLwwHhWPRZ2JZejA3le5oY= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: Tele2 X-Trace: DXC==O3amLk@@>DXDQ[QW:HhJ@6`Y6aWje^YJFek:IM?Y9kAEEog7X=a9:@QoRX=b:kA\Gm6gPf1:jBKI Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19785 Date: 2008-02-14T00:35:20+01:00 List-Id: Maciej Sobczak writes: > AWS is an excellent solution, but in practice requires full control > on the given host. That does not work with the majority of hosting > companies out there. I was thinking along the same lines. Maybe FastCGI might be an option, but I doubt even that. Reducing the size of the executables by a few kilobytes is not going to make any difference, IMHO. If the OP wants maximal performance in forking processes on a shared host, maybe he should go all the way and write his CGI scripts in assembly language :) does anyone else perceive the irony in this? To the OP: my advice is to get your own server (perhaps a virtual one) and use AWS. -- Ludovic Brenta.