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 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,79b248c1cf206957
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-10 17:54:56 PST
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.uchicago.edu!newsfeed.cs.wisc.edu!nnxp1.twtelecom.net!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!uunet!ash.uu.net!world!news
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Subject: Re: Why is memory footprint smaller when compiled static?
Sender: news@world.std.com (Mr Usenet Himself)
Message-ID: <wcc3cvuvdnj.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 00:53:52 GMT
References: <mailman.1023321903.7863.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
 <ugaes7s5a8jcc9@corp.supernews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:25715
Date: 2002-06-11T00:53:52+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> writes:

> Come now. Janus/Ada's linker has eliminated unused subprograms pretty
> much since it was created in the mid-80s. I doubt very much that we were
> 15 years ahead of the curve there... :-)
> 
> I realize that a lot of systems don't do this, and I've never understood
> why: it isn't particularly hard nor very expensive, and it can save a
> lot of space (it saves nearly 1 megabyte of code size in the Claw
> Builder, for example).

I agree -- linkers ought to do this.

But it's harder to do a good job with indirect calls (dispatching),
which you didn't have to worry about in Ada 83.

- Bob