Re: [Patch] skipping import libraries for performance reasons - direct auto-import of dll's

[Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com>]

On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 11:43:42PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Another thing that "would be nice" would be to speed up the handling of
>>import libraries.  It might not be necessary for ld to be as slow as
>>it is.
>
>
>What would probably speed that up dramatically is to construct the 
>importlib with more than a single symbol per bfd.  But I'm not sure 
>exactly how that should be done: all-in-one-massive-bfd (which might 
>cause problems with very large libs), or somewhere in between all-in-one 
>and one-per (which is much more complicated)?  If between, where? 
>5-per?  30-per? 100?

Yeah, this is what I was thinking.  I thought there was some code added
to ld recently which allowed selective linking of functions from a
single object file.  I remember this being a desirable feature of
Microsoft's linker.  If we don't have this, we stand the chance of
increasing the size of an executable for now good reason as it links
in the import library jmp *foo magic for unreferenced functions.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/