Related articles |
---|
link-optimization in C taris@cityline.ru (S. Bochkarev) (1999-05-21) |
Re: link-optimization in C colohan@gs138.sp.cs.cmu.edu (Christopher Brian Colohan) (1999-05-22) |
Re: link-optimization in C bcombee@metrowerks.com (1999-05-22) |
Re: link-optimization in C jsgray@acm.org.nospam (Jan Gray) (1999-05-22) |
Re: link-optimization in C bill@megahits.com (Bill A.) (1999-05-27) |
Re: link-optimization in C law@upchuck.cygnus.com (Jeffrey A Law) (1999-05-27) |
Re: link-optimization in C wfahle@airmail.net (Bill Fahle) (1999-06-27) |
From: | "Bill Fahle" <wfahle@airmail.net> |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
Date: | 27 Jun 1999 00:12:50 -0400 |
Organization: | Compilers Central |
References: | 99-05-091 99-05-112 |
Keywords: | linker, optimize |
Jan Gray wrote:
>For Microsoft, see e.g.
>http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/devprods/vs6/vc++/vccore/_core_.2f.opt.htm
>; (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
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.