Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Message-ID: <3DE2FBFE.7050803@ece.gatech.edu> Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 23:43:42 -0500 From: Charles Wilson 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@cygwin.com Subject: Re: [Patch] skipping import libraries for performance reasons - direct auto-import of dll's References: <00fe01c29480$b9453340$cd6407d5@BRAMSCHE> <20021126013800.GA14011@redhat.com> <3DE2E86D.6010303@ece.gatech.edu> <20021126033039.GA18478@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/