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,e9f27bbe0678fdfc
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com>
Subject: Re: huge executable??
Date: 2000/05/17
Message-ID: <wcck8gt1g6z.fsf@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 624518515
Sender: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
References: <391E09C3.FA04871E@mailandnews.com>
 <wccem72tz4n.fsf@world.std.com> <nzgXvEfJOpz1@eisner.decus.org>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-05-17T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen) writes:

> In article <wccem72tz4n.fsf@world.std.com>, Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com> writes:
> > What about paging?
> 
> "Code" that never gets paged in (for execution) has no need to be
> paged out.

My point was that pages are typically bigger than cache lines.  A given
procedure can be paged in, not because someone called it, but because it
happens to be on the same page as something that someone called.  I
haven't measured this, but I wouldn't be surprised if eliminating
uncalled procedures helped for this reason.

> 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.

I've seen threads wander a lot farther.  ;-)

- Bob