X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f From: Rugxulo Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: demand loaded? Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 05:09:53 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 16 Message-ID: <0211e58d-1d17-494d-9411-28dc3b6d6571@c36g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.13.115.246 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1237291793 6780 127.0.0.1 (17 Mar 2009 12:09:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse AT google DOT com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 12:09:53 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse AT google DOT com Injection-Info: c36g2000yqn.googlegroups.com; posting-host=65.13.115.246; posting-account=p5rsXQoAAAB8KPnVlgg9E_vlm2dvVhfO User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Opera/9.64 (Windows NT 6.0; U; en) Presto/2.1.1,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Hey guys, I figured it might be more productive to ask here than bug you through private e-mails. :-) Anyways, I'm wondering if DJGPP + CWSDPMI loads the entire .EXE into RAM or only specific parts that are loaded when needed ("demand loading"?). In other words, does a 3 MB .EXE always need 3 MB of RAM even if only a small portion of the code is actually run? I get the impression that it does, but I also read Eli Z. mention in an old post that debug info has no significance in regard to the program's memory footprint in normal (non-debug) execution. Is all of that correct? Anybody care to shed some light on this? P.S. On a related note, without wading through a billion boring tech docs, I'm wondering whether ring 0 can support paging and whether paging is only good for virtual memory (sounds like it, from what I've briefly read).