Lib change leads to larger executables

[John Reimer]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:12:10 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:

> Derek Parnell wrote:
>>> Most of the complexity in a linker stems from:
>>> 1) trying to make it fast
>> How fast is fast enough?
> 
> It's never fast enough. I know a fellow who made his fortune just 
> writing a faster linker than MS-LINK. (You can guess the name of that 
> linker!) Borland based their whole company's existence on fast 
> compile-link times. Currently, ld is pig slow, it's a big bottleneck on 
> the edit-compile-link-debug cycle on Linux.
> 
> 


That's not a good argument. ld is pig slow?  I'm sorry but I don't get
that.  It works; it works as intended; and, strangely, I don't hear people
complain about its apparent lack of speed. 

So what if a linker is blitzingly fast. If it's outdated and broken,
there's not much to get excited about.  I'll choose the slow working one
any day.

-JJR