|Linking time firstname.lastname@example.org (Sanjay Jha) (1999-04-18)|
|Re: Linking time email@example.com (1999-04-19)|
|Re: Linking time firstname.lastname@example.org (1999-04-20)|
|Re: Linking time email@example.com (1999-04-21)|
|Re: Linking time firstname.lastname@example.org (1999-04-21)|
|From:||"Sanjay Jha" <email@example.com>|
|Date:||18 Apr 1999 02:02:57 -0400|
|Keywords:||linker, performance, comment|
I have a 100MB static library that I need to link to. Though my exe
uses only a few of the classes from the library, the sheer size of the
library makes the link time as high as 30 minutes on my NT desktop. Is
there any way I can reduce this link time. I do have the source code
for the library and can actually build it myself. Though I can build
only the classes that I need as a separate library but that won't work
for everybody. There are many other developers on the project that
have the same problem.
Actually If I can find out what is that takes more time, disk I/O or
CPU, I can try to do something about it.
[Interesting question. Windows libraries have reasonable symbol tables,
so it sounds like your linker deals badly with large tables. This can
easily happen when someone who thinks he understands hashing but doesn't
invents a symbol table hash that ends up dumping everything into one
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.