Re: Why do we still link?

Ed Finch <c5cx016@boe00.minc.umd.edu>
Wed, 13 Apr 1994 01:39:41 GMT

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Why do we still assemble? hbaker@netcom.com (1994-04-06)
Re: Why do we still assemble? conway@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (1994-04-11)
Re: Why do we still link? c5cx016@boe00.minc.umd.edu (Ed Finch) (1994-04-13)
Re: Why do we still link? jhallen@world.std.com (1994-04-14)
| List of all articles for this month |
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: Ed Finch <c5cx016@boe00.minc.umd.edu>
Keywords: linker
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 94-04-032 94-04-073
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 1994 01:39:41 GMT

Thomas Conway wrote:


> What is the state of the art in linkers?


In the DOS/Windows world, it's OPTLINK, by SLR Systems. Probably the most
famous story goes that the Word-For-Windows people at Microslop
(oops...Microsoft) would start a link and go home. The next morning, it
would be done. They bought OPTLINK, and cut the link to 15-20 minutes.


The second-most-famous story: Someone complained on Borland's forum about
Turbo Linker's poor speed. One of the engineers (possibly Daivd
Intersimone) replied "Well, you need OPTLINK"


Ed Finch
<C5cx016@boe00.minc.umd.edu>
--

Post a followup to this message

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