[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#757941: static linking: alternatives for glibc?


Julian Taylor:
> this is already the case with regular static linking, you don't need LTO
> to remove unused code, the compiler only uses those objects from that
> archive that are required to resolve all symbols.
… remove _some_ unused code. Lots of code the linker pulls in from gcc will
never be called. For instance, it doesn't _know_ that none of your printf
statements contain '%f', so it adds the heap of code required to print
floats regardless.

-- Matthias Urlichs

Reply to: