Re: deadcode optimization

Laurent Guerby <guerby@acm.org>
1 Mar 2001 14:30:12 -0500

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
deadcode optimization khoury@club-internet.fr (Elie Khoury) (2001-03-01)
Re: deadcode optimization fjh@cs.mu.OZ.AU (2001-03-01)
Re: deadcode optimization broeker@physik.rwth-aachen.de (Hans-Bernhard Broeker) (2001-03-01)
Re: deadcode optimization Bjorn.DeSutter@rug.ac.be (Bjorn De Sutter) (2001-03-01)
Re: deadcode optimization guerby@acm.org (Laurent Guerby) (2001-03-01)
Re: deadcode optimization stonybrk@fubar.com (Norman Black) (2001-03-04)
Re: deadcode optimization fjh@cs.mu.OZ.AU (2001-03-08)
Re: deadcode optimization tgi@netgem.com (2001-03-08)
Re: deadcode optimization rog@vitanuova.com (2001-03-08)
Re: deadcode optimization stonybrk@ix.netcom.com (Norman Black) (2001-03-10)
Re: deadcode optimization stonybrk@ix.netcom.com (Norman Black) (2001-03-10)
[8 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Laurent Guerby <guerby@acm.org>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 1 Mar 2001 14:30:12 -0500
Organization: Club-Internet (France)
References: 01-03-012
Keywords: linker, optimize
Posted-Date: 01 Mar 2001 14:30:12 EST

"Elie Khoury" <khoury@club-internet.fr> writes:
> Is there a way to improve "deadcode removal" = the way the linker
> removes unreferenced functions, in order to have smaller executables ?
> I noticed gcc is very bad with this operation. Should I help him by
> preprocessing, or is there any hints to perform a good cleaning ? we
> suppose we don't "play" with functions pointers thanks for help khoury


For GCC, see http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/1999-11n/msg00752.html (gcc
-ffunction-sections and ld --gc-sections on ELF platforms). According
to some quoted content there, a discussion on this very topic took
place in comp.compilers in may 1999.


(Info from google "gcc dead code removal".)


--
Laurent Guerby <guerby@acm.org>

Post a followup to this message

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