X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
From:	Rugxulo <rugxulo AT gmail DOT com>
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
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).

- Raw text -