Re: gnat-3.2 transition plan
Miah Gregory <email@example.com> writes:
> This concerns me a little. It seems to my untrained eye that this change
> would mean that we're sacrificing large amounts of space in packages
> compiled with GNAT, just to save rebuilding those packages when a new
> version of GNAT is uploaded? Given that ACT releases aren't exactly daily,
> is this really the right solution for the problem?
It will be a net win in the end because we can remove the old GNAT
package as soon as the new one is released (see my other message).
> Dynamic compiled with: gnatmake hello_world.adb
> Static compiled with: gnatmake hello_world.adb -bargs -static
(Note that this just links the GNAT libraries statically, so the
comparison is fair.)
> So, for big executables, changing to static isn't going to make a great
> deal of difference, but for smaller programs, this could well mean a
> significant increase in binary size (incidentally, gvd is already being
> statically linked).
I don't see a significant number of small Ada programs in Debian.
True, we had to include several copies of the run-time library in the
gnat package itself we linked it statically, but we will in the end
because the DSO is about as large. 8-)