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: 103376,6ff6ac051491e437
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: GNAT Codesize
Date: 1996/06/25
Message-ID: <dewar.835750355@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 162278127
references: <31c8fdd4.5a455349@zesi.ruhr.de> <dewar.835359186@schonberg>
 <835637893.1349.0@assen.demon.co.uk>
 <Pine.GSO.3.93.960624191009.17694A-100000@sky.net>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-06-25T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


using the codesize of hello world as a measure of something or other
is not unreasonable, but be careful not to assume that you can measure
code size by looking at the size of the executable, since the two
are unrelated, in particular the executable contains both the code
and the debugging information -- the latter can be quite voluminous,
and indeed from one point of view, it is a measure of quality to 
generate MORE debugging information rather than less, assuming that
the information is properly generated and useful.