Xref: utzoo comp.databases:2760 comp.sys.ibm.pc:30137
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!leah!bingvaxu!vu0112
From: vu0112@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Cliff Joslyn)
Newsgroups: comp.databases,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: RTLink (was Re: Possible Clipper Bug?)
Message-ID: <2182@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu>
Date: 14 Jun 89 00:39:14 GMT
References: <506@dcscg1.UUCP> <1225@cbnewsc.ATT.COM> <Jun.13.19.36.26.1989.6999@yes.rutgers.edu>
Reply-To: vu0112@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu.cc.binghamton.edu (Cliff Joslyn)
Distribution: usa
Organization: SUNY Binghamton, NY
Lines: 21

In article <Jun.13.19.36.26.1989.6999@yes.rutgers.edu> emuleomo@yes.rutgers.edu (Emuleomo) writes:
>> With reference to the use of PLINK86 or the DOS LINK(ER) for linking
>> Clipper .OBJs
>
>Even faster for clipper linking is "tlink" Turbo Linker from the magicians
>at Borland International!!  However, overlays are not supported.  Big deal huh!

For a long time PLink was the only real overlay linker around, and it
was *painfully* slow.  I got an order of magnitude improvement in link
times first moving to MSLink and thence TLink.  I only used PLink for
final production linking.

But now we have RTLink, a new overlay linker.  I'm glad for that, but
has anyone used it, and compared for link time in a typical clipper
application?

-- 
O---------------------------------------------------------------------->
| Cliff Joslyn, Cybernetician at Large
| Systems Science, SUNY Binghamton, vu0112@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu
V All the world is biscuit shaped. . .