Nilmoni Deb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > 1) It's traditional Unix behaviour, so changing it will break some > > programs. > > Any example ?
I don't have any specific examples, no. > > 2) It is more efficient, as the linker can just walk through an > > archive's symbol table, include all required objects, and then move > > on. > > In other words, save an average of half the time by not looking back. Not that it really matters, but I think the analysis is a little more complicated than that. You would have to keep a separate hash table for identifiers found in an archive symbol table but not included in the link yet, and then you would have to do another hash lookup for each new undefined symbol. Or you would have to make the regular hash table much larger, and annotate symbols in there for 'defined but not included in link', but that would slow down every hash table lookup on average. Ian _______________________________________________ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
