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: 1996/07/01
Message-ID: <dewar.836197454@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 163705994
references: <31c8fdd4.5a455349@zesi.ruhr.de> <dewar.835359186@schonberg>
 <835637893.1349.0@assen.demon.co.uk> <dewar.835838816@schonberg>
 <835984668.12569.0@assen.demon.co.uk> <4r1hb5$e6m@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
 <836045240.382.1@assen.demon.co.uk>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-07-01T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>



John McCabe says

"Because you're modifying the file that contains the executable code
and you're risking the possibility of a bug in the 'strip' command
that may remove something it shouldn't. This may be something that
happens to be not fully tested on a large system."

Now that's really FUD at work. Strip is a trivial command, you might as
well worry about ls corrupting the file, or worrying that deleting the
separate symbol table file might clobber the executable file (stranger
things have happened). Of course strip has been tested on large systems!

If you start using this argument, you can prove that ANY possible aproach
might be dangerous!