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: 1996/04/19
Message-ID: <dewar.829886501@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 148363548
references: <4kmq7a$egm@fozzie.sun3.iaf.nl> <dewar.829400646@schonberg>
 <4l0o3s$hgt@utrhcs.cs.utwente.nl> <31742475.1CFBAE39@escmail.orl.mmc.com>
 <dewar.829700517@schonberg> <31765239.167EB0E7@escmail.orl.mmc.com>
 <Pine.SOL.3.91.960418140455.19331A-100000@sky.net>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-04-19T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

John Howard replied to T.E.D.'s comments on DLL's:

"You can gain by saving on time to load the program and DLL's.  The
decoding and expansion of a compressed file in memory might beat the time
it takes to access a slow I/O device for the uncompressed original file."

OOPS! This is mixing up two threads. Let's separate them clearly:

1. The issue of compressing exe's and dll's

2. The issue of creating the dll's in the first place (that is what T.E.D's
	message was addressing.

What you said is right, but is not relevant to Ted's point.