I understood what you said but this way, link times are just unacceptable, so the only "work around", at least for me, is to strip/upx at the end.
Maybe the solution, as many states, is a brand new linker... -----Original Message----- From: Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 9:38 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [lazarus] Who Discussed Linker Slowness? On 2/13/06, anthony boudouvas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes but this way, we have every time we build something faster > link-time, which is essential because we do it continuously, and when > we are done we use strip (and then upx) and we get > smaller executables easily... I think you did not understand. After strip and upx, comparing a file with smartlinking and one without smartlinking. The smartlinked executable is 30% smaller. Read the link on my other e-mail. Perhaps the ideal would be if we could have one LCL without smartlinking for the creation process and another with smartlink for the final Release? How big / difficult would this be? -- Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject archives at http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailarchives _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject archives at http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailarchives
