Bug fixes.

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html

Walter, you're  machine!

Walter Bright wrote:

> Bug fixes.
> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html

"Walter Bright" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:e1egd4$flk$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Bug fixes.
>
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html

And what's this _smart linking_ that's so important as to be required to be in italics?  ;)

Something big coming soon for D?

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> "Walter Bright" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:e1egd4$flk$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> Bug fixes.
>>
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
> 
> And what's this _smart linking_ that's so important as to be required to be in italics?  ;)
> 
> Something big coming soon for D? 

Naw. "smart linking" is a marketing term that appeared in the 1980's that refers to the linker discarding unreferenced code sections. Since it's a bit of jargon, I italicized it. Optlink has been doing it for 15+ years, ld only recently.

Walter Bright wrote:
> Bug fixes.
> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html

nice work : )

On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 18:25:49 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:

> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>> "Walter Bright" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:e1egd4$flk$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>> Bug fixes.
>>>
>>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
>> 
>> And what's this _smart linking_ that's so important as to be required to be in italics?  ;)
>> 
>> Something big coming soon for D?
> 
> Naw. "smart linking" is a marketing term that appeared in the 1980's that refers to the linker discarding unreferenced code sections. Since it's a bit of jargon, I italicized it. Optlink has been doing it for 15+ years, ld only recently.

Is a 'code section' equivalent to a D module? In other words, if I have three D modules, each one is in its own unique code section. And thus if I'm not referencing anything in one of those modules and I include the module.obj in the command line, the linker will discard that module from the resulting executable file?

Or is 'code section' more finely grained than that, say down to the function level?

-- 
Derek
(skype: derek.j.parnell)
Melbourne, Australia
"Down with mediocracy!"
11/04/2006 11:40:18 AM

In article <e1egd4$flk$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...
>
>Bug fixes.
>
>http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html

Walter, I just wanted to thank you for all you hard work you're been putting into the D! :)

David L.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Dare to reach for the Stars...Dare to Dream, Build, and Achieve!"
-------------------------------------------------------------------

MKoD: http://spottedtiger.tripod.com/D_Language/D_Main_XP.html

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 11:43:28 +1000, Derek Parnell wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 18:25:49 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
> 
>> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>>> "Walter Bright" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:e1egd4$flk$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>>> Bug fixes.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
>>> 
>>> And what's this _smart linking_ that's so important as to be required to be in italics?  ;)
>>> 
>>> Something big coming soon for D?
>> 
>> Naw. "smart linking" is a marketing term that appeared in the 1980's that refers to the linker discarding unreferenced code sections. Since it's a bit of jargon, I italicized it. Optlink has been doing it for 15+ years, ld only recently.
> 
> Is a 'code section' equivalent to a D module? In other words, if I have three D modules, each one is in its own unique code section. And thus if I'm not referencing anything in one of those modules and I include the module.obj in the command line, the linker will discard that module from the resulting executable file?
> 
> Or is 'code section' more finely grained than that, say down to the function level?

Never mind, I just did a test and it seems to be at the function level. That is, optlink discards functions that are not referenced even if other functions in the same module are referenced.
-- 
Derek
(skype: derek.j.parnell)
Melbourne, Australia
"Down with mediocracy!"
11/04/2006 11:48:48 AM

Walter Bright wrote:
> Bug fixes.
> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html

Superb as always :)

Derek Parnell wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 11:43:28 +1000, Derek Parnell wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 18:25:49 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> Naw. "smart linking" is a marketing term that appeared in the 1980's that refers to the linker discarding unreferenced code sections. Since it's a bit of jargon, I italicized it. Optlink has been doing it for 15+ years, ld only recently.
>> Is a 'code section' equivalent to a D module? In other words, if I have
>> three D modules, each one is in its own unique code section. And thus if
>> I'm not referencing anything in one of those modules and I include the
>> module.obj in the command line, the linker will discard that module from
>> the resulting executable file?
>>
>> Or is 'code section' more finely grained than that, say down to the
>> function level?
> 
> Never mind, I just did a test and it seems to be at the function level.
> That is, optlink discards functions that are not referenced even if other
> functions in the same module are referenced.

Each module is made up of multiple sections. Smart linking relies on the compiler emitting a separate section for each function. You can see this by running obj2asm on it.