|link-optimization in C firstname.lastname@example.org (S. Bochkarev) (1999-05-21)|
|Re: link-optimization in C email@example.com (Christopher Brian Colohan) (1999-05-22)|
|Re: link-optimization in C firstname.lastname@example.org (1999-05-22)|
|Re: link-optimization in C email@example.com (Jan Gray) (1999-05-22)|
|Re: link-optimization in C firstname.lastname@example.org (Bill A.) (1999-05-27)|
|Re: link-optimization in C email@example.com (Jeffrey A Law) (1999-05-27)|
|Re: link-optimization in C firstname.lastname@example.org (Bill Fahle) (1999-06-27)|
|From:||"Bill Fahle" <email@example.com>|
|Date:||27 Jun 1999 00:12:50 -0400|
Jan Gray wrote:
>For Microsoft, see e.g.
>; (registration may be required).
<snip: "function-level linking is not a mess">
>See the above MSDN URL for more information.
MSVCC++ Win32 Specific->
Note that if you use the -Gy feature (function-level linking), your
code-size may actually get BIGGER if you don't also use /O1 (optimize for
smaller size). In the case of O1, the comdats are aligned on one-byte
boundaries (and I believe function-level linking happens by default),
instead of the default 16-byte boundaries. The overhead of having each
function on a 16-byte boundary is usually larger than the combined size of
unused functions. There's a section in the help that describes all of this,
if you look for "executable size" in the search (not index) of 6.0.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.