Mail Archives: djgpp/1996/03/21/09:56:48
On Wed, 20 Mar 1996, Bob Babcock wrote:
> Does this affect ld.exe? Linking always seems to take a long time,
> and generates a lot of disk activity (which I don't think is swapping
Maybe. Unfortunately, no one (AFAIK) have tried to see how does ld
perform when `fseek' and `ftell' do not discard the buffered portion of
the file. I didn't even hear reliable reports that these two functions
are indeed the cause of slow operation (e.g., profiling ld would be
nice), or even, for that matter, that ld uses `fseek' heavily.
On the other hand, a few people reported that stubediting ld to enlarge
the transfer buffer to 64K made it *much* faster, so you might try this.
If you do, maybe you could investigate this a bit further, because people
who reported this seem to work with networked drives, and I don't know if
the suggestion is also valid for other kinds of disk.
The reason I'm not sure about the whole issue is that ld works reasonably
well for me (under native DOS) without any excess disk activity, although
I didn't really compare its speed with the v1.x version.
- Raw text -