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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,e9f27bbe0678fdfc
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen)
Subject: Re: huge executable??
Date: 2000/05/16
Message-ID: <nzgXvEfJOpz1@eisner.decus.org>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 624142458
References: <391E09C3.FA04871E@mailandnews.com>
 <wccem72tz4n.fsf@world.std.com>
X-Trace: news.decus.org 958495622 327 KILGALLEN [216.44.122.34]
Organization: LJK Software
Reply-To: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-05-16T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <wccem72tz4n.fsf@world.std.com>, Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com> writes:
> Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> writes:
> 
>> Elimination of unused code will most certainly reduce executable
>> size but it won't help one bit in reducing cache pressure, since
>> obviously unused code never gets into the cache during
>> execution.
> 
> What about paging?

"Code" that never gets paged in (for execution) has no need to be
paged out.

Mine is a general comment, not based on the original OS/2 problem,
but there seems to be a lot of that going on in this thread.