On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Keean Schupke <[email protected]> wrote:
> Per earlier discussion, I'm not making the same assumptions about object >> and header files that you are. I'm assuming that an assembly consists of a >> mix of byte code and native code plus metadata. >> > > So you cannot use the normal "binutils" linker then? Thats fine if thats > what you want, > Indeed not. It is just barely possible to use the binutils linker in a language that does *not* combine unboxed types with abstract types, provided you are willing to tolerate a lot of dictionary overheads. I actually do know how to encode that when unboxed types are introduced, but the performance would be unthinkable. > I would prefer to stick to the 'standard' linker, but it does mean you can > do some cross module optimisations that I would not be able to do. > For many reasons I would prefer it too, but the main reason is a pragmatic acceptance issue. shap
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
