On Monday, 6 January 2014 at 18:59:00 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
Of course ! --gc-sections is just a dirty hack. If you want
smaller
binaries, then you are better off aiding the shared library
support. :)
I don't ever recall any of the core maintainers ever endorsing
that switch
anyway
H
On Monday, 6 January 2014 at 18:59:00 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
On 6 Jan 2014 13:45, "Dicebot" wrote:
On Friday, 3 January 2014 at 18:14:58 UTC, Mike wrote:
I eventually tracked it down to the fact that I was compiling
with
-ffunction-sections and -fdata-sections and linking with
--gc-sectio
On 6 Jan 2014 13:45, "Dicebot" wrote:
>
> On Friday, 3 January 2014 at 18:14:58 UTC, Mike wrote:
>>
>> I eventually tracked it down to the fact that I was compiling with
-ffunction-sections and -fdata-sections and linking with --gc-sections and
symbols like...
>
>
> I never got --gc-sections to wo
On Friday, 3 January 2014 at 18:14:58 UTC, Mike wrote:
I eventually tracked it down to the fact that I was compiling
with -ffunction-sections and -fdata-sections and linking with
--gc-sections and symbols like...
I never got --gc-sections to work reliably with D without going
dirty, crashes w
On Saturday, 4 January 2014 at 07:59:55 UTC, Timo Sintonen wrote:
In dmd and ides it is common to compile and link everything at
once. the compiler has all information available and may remove
unused code and data.
Actually no D compiler does it out of the box as far as I am
aware. It is a bi
