Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!ugle.unit.no!hanche
From: hanche@imf.unit.no (Harald Hanche-Olsen)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apollo
Subject: Re: Difference between Unix ld and Aegis bind commands.
Message-ID: <HANCHE.91May2165927@hufsa.imf.unit.no>
Date: 2 May 91 14:59:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: hufsa.HANCHE.91May2165927
References: <1991May1.035524.7904@bullet.ecf.toronto.edu>
	<18894@sdcc6.ucsd.edu>
Sender: news@ugle.unit.no
Organization: The Norwegian Institute of Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Lines: 25
In-Reply-To: wa115@sdcc12.ucsd.edu's message of 2 May 91 01:24:52 GMT

In article <18894@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> wa115@sdcc12.ucsd.edu (Russell ) writes:

   In article <1991May1.035524.7904@bullet.ecf.toronto.edu> aerostr@bullet.ecf.toronto.edu (W. Graham Elliott) writes:
   [... explaining how ld creates much larger files than bind ...]

     I'd guess that the apollo bind program is taking advantage of
    Aegis' dynamic binding scheme and not binding the standard
    libraries in with the executable.  The UNIX ld, on the other
    hand, is including the library object in the final coff file.

No it doesn't, does it?  Are you serious about this??  (Run nm on the
linked file and watch all the "U" (for undefined) entries...)

    That would account for the large size difference in the two
    files.

Hmm, I wonder how the size differences were measured?  The files
generated by ld might have holes in them that could confuse the output
of ls -l.  With ls -s you get the disk space used.  This has has me
fooled more than once.

- Harald Hanche-Olsen <hanche@imf.unit.no>
  Division of Mathematical Sciences
  The Norwegian Institute of Technology
  N-7034 Trondheim, NORWAY