Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!crdgw1!uunet!rosie!elvis
From: sstreep@elvis (Sam Streeper)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: Small executables (was Re: 16mb minimum for next machines)
Message-ID: <650@rosie.NeXT.COM>
Date: 2 May 91 23:29:49 GMT
References: <1991May2.142103.6047@potomac.ads.com>
Sender: news@NeXT.COM
Lines: 29
Nntp-Posting-Host: elvis.next.com

In article <1991May2.142103.6047@potomac.ads.com> jtn@potomac.ads.com (John T.  
Nelson) writes:
> 
> .... ahem yes well all this talk about the size of binaries implies
> that compiler writers are no longer concerned with space effeciency as
> they used to be since internal memory is now cheap as dirt and
> besides, you've got virtual memory so no problem right?  Hmmmm...
> still compilers should be more effecient about what they generate.

Things are not always as they might seem.  No file on disk will ever be smaller  
than the sector (or perhaps cluster) size, even if it has very few "meaningful"  
bytes.  And no program in virtual memory will ever be smaller than the page  
size.

Mach is (surprise) actually very smart about swapping, and pages from an  
executable file are not swapped out to the swap file because they already exist  
on the disk in page size chunks (8K).  Thus you tend not to have executables  
taking twice as much disk space as necessary.

Also, sometime for fun you might take a look at the assembly code gcc spits  
out.  Its so optimized that it can be as difficult to read as clever hand coded  
assembly in many cases.

cheers,
-sam

--
Opinions are not those of my employer.  They're not even mine.  They're
probably wrong besides.  How did they get in here, anyway?