Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 22:58:09 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: openssh static size. and -ffunction-sections
Message-ID: <20011121035809.GF16959@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
References: <097201c17240$26c4ce30$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <097201c17240$26c4ce30$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i

On Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 02:53:59PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>Just a thought: was the openssl static libraries built
>with -ffunction-sections?
>
>If not, then that may be why the openssh static binaries where so big
>and so I think that -ffunction-sections should be mandatory for
>packagers, unless the libraries sources is one-function-per-file
>structured (which achieves the same thing).

Does the linker do the "right thing" when functions are in their
own sections?  I didn't know that.  I thought there was some other
linker switch available for accomplishing that.

I know that Microsoft's linker has a switch for this and I thought
that ld had something added relatively recently.

cgf