On processors for D

[Walter Bright]

Sean Kelly wrote:
> Fredrik Olsson wrote:
>> And besides, is it wise to depend on what a linker "should do"? If 
>> current build chain nicely throws out what is not needed, does that 
>> make it right to assume that all build chains should behave as such?
> 
> I think this is a reasonable assumption, as to do otherwise necessitates 
> design compromises to keep modules as small and isolated as possible. 
> And while this may be reasonable for small projects, I can't see it 
> working very well for large ones.

This capability of linkers (eliminating unreferenced functions) first 
appeared in the late 80's, and quickly became standard practice. If 
you've got a linker that doesn't support that, you're likely to have 
many other serious problems with it, as D (and C++) depend on other 
linker features introduced in the late 80's.

D doesn't require anything of a linker that C++ doesn't already 
realistically require.