Miah Gregory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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-)
