Executable size affected by module count?

[John Reimer]

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 15:49:28 +0000, jcc7 wrote:

> == Quote from kris (foo at bar.com)'s article
>> >> Also: are dmd obj files compatible with any other linker?
>> >
>> >
>> > Any linker that supports the Microsoft OMF format. I know Microsoft
>> > linkers dropped support for it when they went to 32 bits, but I am not
>> > very familiar with other linkers. Pharlap did, but I think they went out
>> > of business.
>> Thanks. This means it's not exactly feasible to check the concern via
>> another linker.
> 
> It's probably a longshot that wouldn't work, but it's possible that the Standalone
> OpenWatcom Tools would be of some use:
> http://cmeerw.org/prog/owtools/
> 
> I haven't tried using any of the tools myself (and the webpage implies that
> development stopped in November 2003), but I thought I'd point this page out in
> case it's of use to you. It mentions: "I am currently working on getting
> OpenWatcom's tools working with Digital Mars C++ to provide an alternative to the
> already dated Digital Mars tools." And one of the tools is called "Open Watcom OMF
> Dump Utility".
> 
> jcc7


That statement has been there for years.  I'm not sure if anywone has
found any benefit to using the modified openwatcom linker.  There doesn't
seem to be any ongoing development for dmc compatibility.  The one
benefit (and primary goal, I think) was the ability to link with
coff files, but since dmc/dmd spits out omf only, there's not much
advantage beyond that... and then even coff files from different compiler
venders are incompatible. Object formats have been a mess on windows for
well over a decade...

dmd's largest problem here continues to be the omf format.  On the
other hand, dmd would do well to have a new linker and object system to
help it support new language features.  Depending on old C technology is
restrictive to D's progress.  Alas, easier said than done.

-JJR