On 6 Dec 2004, at 17:29, John Goerzen wrote:
That is an excellent point. Who would use an ls or cp that requires 10MB of RAM, especially on embedded devices?
This is presumably just because we don't have 'smart' linking, so the whole library is bundled in. I imagine in principle smart linking would be possible...
optimization. I for one think that the performance benefit we see from that is more than offset by the inconvenience. If it were at least made an option, then a lot of other options would become available to us, too.
I imageine that turning off cross-module inlining could be catastrophic for performance in certain cases. C++ solves this problem by defining all its inlinable functions in the interface rather than the implementation. Conceivably a clever compiler could still do inlining in one direction, and produce a dynamically linked executable, I suppose. Jules