Re: Smart linking under UNIX

henrik@tazdevil.llnl.gov (Henrik Klagges)
22 Aug 91 17:19:58 GMT

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Smart linking under UNIX umh@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (1991-08-19)
Re: Smart linking under UNIX mengel@fnal.fnal.gov (Marc Mengel) (1991-08-19)
Re: Smart linking under UNIX schwartz@groucho.cs.psu.edu (1991-08-19)
Re: Smart linking under UNIX sef@kithrup.COM (1991-08-20)
Re: Smart linking under UNIX jones@pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu (1991-08-21)
Re: Smart linking under UNIX rro@debussy.cs.colostate.edu (1991-08-22)
Re: Smart linking under UNIX hyatt@cis.uab.edu (1991-08-22)
Re: Smart linking under UNIX henrik@tazdevil.llnl.gov (1991-08-22)
Re: Smart linking under UNIX henrik@tazdevil.llnl.gov (1991-08-22)
Re: Smart linking under UNIX weitek!ars@Sun.COM (1991-08-22)
Re: Smart linking under UNIX dalamb@umiacs.umd.edu (1991-08-23)
Re: Smart linking under UNIX pardo@gar.cs.washington.edu (1991-08-23)
Re: Smart linking under UNIX thorinn@diku.dk (1991-08-25)
Re: Smart linking under UNIX przemek@rrdstrad.nist.gov (1991-08-26)
[3 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |

Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.compilers
From: henrik@tazdevil.llnl.gov (Henrik Klagges)
Followup-To: comp.arch
Keywords: linker
Organization: MPCI at LLNL
References: <1991Aug15.205912.6553@sono.uucp> <GLEW.91Aug16145002@pdx007.intel.com> 91-08-085 91-08-090
Date: 22 Aug 91 17:19:58 GMT

In article 91-08-090, mengel@fnal.fnal.gov (Marc Mengel) writes:


|> i.e. if you *want* separately included functions, build separate object
|> files, and use the archiver to make a library.


1) This doesn't work with all the nice and big existing libraries;
2) It's no good to create zillions of individual object files out
      of zillions of *.c's;
3) If we really care about compilers eliminating dead code, why having
      a linker so dumb that it links in megabytes of dead functions ?;


I think that ld(1) is close to braindamaged. Just to mention it, the fact that
it doesn't complain about multiple definitions is (ok, ANSI) really dangerous.


Cheers, Henrik


MPCI at LLNL
IBM Research
U. of Munich


PS: I know it's not specifically comp.arch, but I really dislike ld.
PS/2: See you at HotChips !
--


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.