Re: Are Better Linkers Possible?

pardo@gar.cs.washington.edu (David Keppel)
Wed, 21 Aug 91 18:56:53 GMT

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Are Better Linkers Possible? westfal@mprgate.mpr.ca (1991-08-20)
Re: Are Better Linkers Possible? pardo@gar.cs.washington.edu (1991-08-21)
Re: Are Better Linkers Possible? leiser@ibiza.karlsruhe.gmd.de (Martin Leiser) (1991-08-22)
Re: Are Better Linkers Possible? bgb@iexist.att.com (1991-08-24)
| List of all articles for this month |
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: pardo@gar.cs.washington.edu (David Keppel)
Keywords: linker
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
References: 91-08-102
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 91 18:56:53 GMT

westfal@mprgate.mpr.ca (Ron Westfall) writes:
>[What else should be in the linker?]


There are lots of good reasons for putting things in the linker. Be
careful, though, of putting too much in the linker. Compile cycles
(recompile both foo.c and bar.c) can go in parallel, linker cycles
cannot (or at least are hard to do).


;-D on ( Symbolically Unresolved Issues ) Pardo
--

Post a followup to this message

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