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: 103376,1bce3f54cf1cba1b
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: GNAT Executables: How low can you go?
Date: 1996/04/13
Message-ID: <dewar.829400646@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 147325935
references: <4kmq7a$egm@fozzie.sun3.iaf.nl>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-04-13T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Geert said

"The complete application which also produces debug information about
the regular expression and which dumps the complete statusmachine in
human-readable format is only 11616 bytes in size!!! I really didn't
know GNAT executables could be this small and I even used string
slices, exception handlers, discriminated records containing
variable-sized arrays and text-io on integers, booleans and enumeration
types. There was no 'dead' code in the source and all generated code
and message strings are in the 11616 byte executable."

I of course like to see positive posts about GNAT like this, but surely
that figure of 11,616 is wrong, I could believe 116K, but 12K must
be wrong, especially if you are using statically linked libraries.
Text_IO alone is larger than this.

Can you double check your numbers ....