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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.236.228.106 with SMTP id e100mr34067612yhq.46.1420027693314; Wed, 31 Dec 2014 04:08:13 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.140.30.118 with SMTP id c109mr9272qgc.15.1420027693296; Wed, 31 Dec 2014 04:08:13 -0800 (PST) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!dc16no3202636qab.1!news-out.google.com!n9ni76qai.0!nntp.google.com!dc16no3202632qab.1!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 04:08:13 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=212.99.10.162; posting-account=ku4DIwoAAACRt0A2H-srh5aOk_YodLAH NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.99.10.162 References: <7f38a07d-3f73-432c-8647-e3a7dcf43637@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Size of linked program increasing with new version of GNAT. From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jean_Fran=E7ois_Martinez?= Injection-Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 12:08:13 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Received-Bytes: 3274 X-Received-Body-CRC: 3077806529 Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:24304 Date: 2014-12-31T04:08:13-08:00 List-Id: On Tuesday, December 30, 2014 12:56:43 AM UTC+1, Randy Brukardt wrote: The size of Hello world tells one=20 > very little about the size and efficiency of a real program. >=20 Trying to bring some common sense in the discussion (not fr(om you Mr Bruka= rdt) If we intend is to measure the actual quality of the compiler at generating= small code then the significtaive variable is the size of the .o file not = the size of the executable. The executable is parasited by things like run= time, libraries, dynamic linker (or first stage of dynamic linker) and so o= n. So the more capable your environment and the biggest the program. =20 So if the program is small and will run it on a half decent box you don't c= are. Remember the EEPC, that five years old laptop good for web surfing and= little more? It had 1G of memory. A million Ks. So who cares about the s= ize of hello world? If your program has megs and megs of code then the overhead due to a more c= apable runtime will be completely irrelevant respective to the "pure" (that= is .o) size of your program and third party (ie not related to Gnat) libra= ries. If you have to squeeze your program on an Arduino then size matters but the= maintainer of Gnat for Arduino has tuned the compiler default restrictions= (gnat.adc), runtime and Gnat related libraries for small size so you can't= draw conclusions basing on what you see on x86. Still more irrelevant be= cause it is different machine code thus a different code generator so a big= ger .o on X86 does not necessarily translate on a bigger .o on Arduino. Just my 2c Jean-Fran=E7ois Martinez