Re: [dev] [libutf] Proposal for additional rune utility functions

From: Julian Dammann <dammannj_AT_googlemail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 07:37:00 +0100

> > Yes, I speak about static linking, because It is what we have in
> > sbase, so dynamic linking is outside of this discussion (ant it is
> > not suckless :P). And maybe compilers are smarters, but the link
> > process is the same. Try it and you will see it. Even if you find
> > some too much smart linker that does it, you are doing something
> > wrong and requiring a more complex toolchain. I hope we will
> > not have to implement this kind of linkers some day ;).
> >
> > Again, try it.
>
> just for the record, as discussed in IRC you are right about it.
> Apparently, compilers are not as smart as I had in mind previously.
> Going the separate approach is a good thing, so I welcome this
> suggestion!

I can't speak for all compilers, but afaik gcc does support the optimization I
think you are talking about: take a look at gcc's -fdata-sections and
-ffunction-sections as well as ld's --gc-sections.
At least I remember that some time ago I tested this and only functions used
were actually linked in.

Kind regards
Julian
Received on Wed Feb 11 2015 - 07:37:00 CET