Дмитрий пишет:
Do you really believe that the inclusion of unused code in the target
binary file will be faster than a smart linking?
Maybe it's not, but, since no one is willing to implement the latter anyway,
why argue?
I still hope that sane person will read this post. And at least agree
with my arguments.
Smart linking is the norm in the Pascal world, which has long set
TurboPascal. You found the different of obstacles for the generation of
reduced-size code, justifying it with the desire to have a fast
compilation speed and the small size of the compiler itself. But you
appeals to the fact that the compiler may be placed on a floppy disk,
and very happy. I do not use a floppy disk. You do not use a floppy
disk. We do use RAM and flash memory on a few gigabytes and a very quick
Internet channels. You do agree, compiler size does not really matter.
Moreover, smart linking feature is a really special quality of good
compiler. Compiling time? Heh, with separate compilation, search in
binary tree and mark code as unused is microseconds. And a complete
including a large library to target binary is disk IO operations and
already not microseconds, but much more.
Or the implementation
of this feature will take a lot of megabytes of space in the amount of
the compiler?
Maybe a single feature wouldn't, but the desire to include all the features
possible certainly would.
If you do not want to do anything in this direction, what to justify
their laziness empty words?
Oleg N. Cher,
VEDAsoft Oberon Club
http://zx.oberon2.ru
_______________________________________________
Tinycc-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
