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) |
[7 later articles] |
Newsgroups: | comp.arch,comp.compilers |
From: | sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) |
Keywords: | linker |
Organization: | Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd. |
References: | <1991Aug15.205912.6553@sono.uucp> <GLEW.91Aug16145002@pdx007.intel.com> 91-08-085 |
Date: | Tue, 20 Aug 1991 02:25:05 GMT |
In article 91-08-085 umh@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes:
>This brings up something I've wondered about. Why do "Standard Unix" linkers
>only include entire object files- ie every function inside the object file-
>rather than the "smart linking" which is standard on Macs and PCs where only
>the actual functions you use in a prticular object file are used?
It wasn't standard on PC's for a while, mind you! (In fact, the uSoft
linker for MSC still links in the entire module.)
The reason it generally doesn't exist under *nix is because it's generally
not worth the bother. It's *possible* to do it, but, on most systems, you
don't gain much. (On a PC, you want to save as much space as possible, and
compacting text space has the added advantage that intersegment calls and
jumps can turn into intrasegment calls and jumps, which are quite a bit
faster.)
--
Sean Eric Fagan
sef@kithrup.COM
--
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.