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,
	MSGID_RANDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,e9f27bbe0678fdfc
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: huge executable??
Date: 2000/05/14
Message-ID: <8fl7bt$9jr$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 623128930
References: <391E09C3.FA04871E@mailandnews.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x36.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun May 14 03:42:55 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.61 [en] (OS/2; I)
Date: 2000-05-14T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <391E09C3.FA04871E@mailandnews.com>,
  David Dousette <david.dousette@mailandnews.com> wrote:
> but it's still 126,000 bytes.... why?  I wrote a similar
> program in C, and it was less than 5,000 bytes... why is the
> .EXE produced by Ada so much bigger?  The executable runs
> fine, and I have plenty of hard
> drive space... I was just curious.


Most likely the C run time is in a shared library, and the
Ada runtime is statically linked. In any case you expect the
runtime overhead to be greater than in C (consider for example
just the exception handling mechanism, which is there by
default in Ada, and unavailable in C).

Comparing trivial programs is really not a significant
excercise, the important thing is what large programs look
like and there the size without debug info should be comparable.

Note that there is no advantage in running emxbind -s EXCEPT to
save disk space, the debug information is not loaded into
memory, and the disadvantage of stripping is that then you will
not be able to debug if you want to!


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.