bugzilla 424 - Unexpected OPTLINK Termination - solved!

[Bill Baxter]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 12:28 AM, Tim Matthews <tim.matthews7 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>
>> So is it any slower now with things not in ASM?
>>
>> --bb
>>
>
> You are not serious are you? The linker not the linked?
>
> If it's functionally more correct, easier to understand and easier to
> implement link time optimizations then how can anyone justify asm to c
> transition (where asm is not required) as a disadvantage?

Walter often defends sticking with OPTLINK because it is fast.  And
the implication is that it is fast in part because it's all in
hand-coded ASM.  I was merely curious if that was holding up or not,
or if in fact being in ASM was irrelevant to the speed.  I would think
linkers would be mostly IO bound since they do fairly simple things
with large amounts of data, so that would argue that it shouldn't
matter much whether it's in ASM or C.

--bb