On 10 October 2012 14:38, Oleg N. Cher
<address@hidden> wrote:
Дмитрий пишет:
Do you really believe that the inclusion of unused code in the target
binary file will be faster than a smart linking?
Maybe it's not, but, since no one is willing to implement the latter anyway, why argue?
I still hope that sane person will read this post. And at least agree with my arguments.
Smart linking is the norm in the Pascal world, which has long set TurboPascal. You found the different of obstacles for the generation of reduced-size code, justifying it with the desire to have a fast compilation speed and the small size of the compiler itself. But you appeals to the fact that the compiler may be placed on a floppy disk, and very happy. I do not use a floppy disk. You do not use a floppy disk. We do use RAM and flash memory on a few gigabytes and a very quick Internet channels. You do agree, compiler size does not really matter. Moreover, smart linking feature is a really special quality of good compiler. Compiling time? Heh, with separate compilation, search in binary tree and mark code as unused is microseconds. And a complete including a large library to target binary is disk IO operations and already not microseconds, but much more.
Or the implementation
of this feature will take a lot of megabytes of space in the amount of
the compiler?
Maybe a single feature wouldn't, but the desire to include all the features possible certainly would.
If you do not want to do anything in this direction, what to justify their laziness empty words?