Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 18:06:24 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: mike@smith.net.au (Mike Smith) Cc: graphix@iastate.edu, tlambert@primenet.com, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Unused functions Message-ID: <199809141806.LAA18220@usr05.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <199809140114.SAA08497@word.smith.net.au> from "Mike Smith" at Sep 13, 98 06:14:32 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> In most object formats, reference information is kept on a per-object > basis (ie. per .o file). Keeping this sort of information on any > smaller granularity would lead to an insane increase in the complexity > and corresponding performance reduction of the link phase. ...and corresponding reduction in time for *re*linking, and reduction in size of the resulting binaries. Basically, it's a compiler-write-benchmark-less-work-to-write thing. > This is why an experienced programmer will group only related items in > a given object. Yes. This is why. > It allows the programmer and the C scoping rules to > work together to determine what should be associated and what need not. Instead of the compiler merely calculating hamiltonian cycles in the dependency graph to do dead code elimination. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199809141806.LAA18220>