Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID:	<3DE2FBFE.7050803@ece.gatech.edu>
Date:	Mon, 25 Nov 2002 23:43:42 -0500
From:	Charles Wilson <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2
X-Accept-Language:	en-us
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: [Patch] skipping import libraries for performance reasons - direct auto-import of dll's
References:	<00fe01c29480$b9453340$cd6407d5 AT BRAMSCHE> <20021126013800 DOT GA14011 AT redhat DOT com> <3DE2E86D DOT 6010303 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <20021126033039 DOT GA18478 AT redhat DOT com>

Christopher Faylor wrote:


> 
> Another thing that "would be nice" would be to speed up the handling of
> import libraries.  It might not be necessary for ld to be as slow as
> it is.


What would probably speed that up dramatically is to construct the 
importlib with more than a single symbol per bfd.  But I'm not sure 
exactly how that should be done: all-in-one-massive-bfd (which might 
cause problems with very large libs), or somewhere in between all-in-one 
and one-per (which is much more complicated)?  If between, where? 
5-per?  30-per? 100?

--Chuck





--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -