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

From: Dimitris Papastamos <sin_AT_2f30.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 10:46:52 +0000

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 07:37:00AM +0100, Julian Dammann wrote:
> > > 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.

This is unsafe in general and not recommended.
Received on Wed Feb 11 2015 - 11:46:52 CET