Re: Structure of large link libraries in f95
- From: Charles Russell <SPAMworFREEwor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 16:45:29 -0600
Joe Krahn wrote:
Executables can get rather large from just from debugging info and symbols. Try compiling without debug options, then strip symbols from the result (strip <filename>).
But I don't write "production code" and don't want the overhead of maintaining separate libraries for debugging and execution. What I really want to minimize is the time spent getting the answer to a problem. Looking at the actual library sizes makes Walter Spector's advice seem like it may well serve my purpose, despite linking more dead code than live. The actual libraries are not so big compared to available memory, and the build time may not be noticeably slower.
.
- References:
- Structure of large link libraries in f95
- From: Charles Russell
- Re: Structure of large link libraries in f95
- From: robert . corbett
- Re: Structure of large link libraries in f95
- From: Charles Russell
- Re: Structure of large link libraries in f95
- From: Walter Spector
- Re: Structure of large link libraries in f95
- From: Charles Russell
- Re: Structure of large link libraries in f95
- From: Walter Spector
- Re: Structure of large link libraries in f95
- From: Joe Krahn
- Structure of large link libraries in f95
- Prev by Date: Re: status of quadruple precision arithmetic in g95 and gfortran?
- Next by Date: Re: Structure of large link libraries in f95
- Previous by thread: Re: Structure of large link libraries in f95
- Next by thread: Re: Structure of large link libraries in f95
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|