Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!sri-unix!quintus!pds
From: pds@quintus.UUCP (Peter Schachte)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Feeping Creaturism
Message-ID: <739@sandino.quintus.UUCP>
Date: 7 Mar 88 22:32:35 GMT
References: <655@nuchat.UUCP> <657@sandino.quintus.UUCP> <367@sas.UUCP> <2403@s.cc.purdue.edu>
Organization: Quintus Computer Systems, Mountain View, CA
Lines: 28
Summary: I think an incremental linker is the first priority

In article <2403@s.cc.purdue.edu>, ain@s.cc.purdue.edu (Patrick White) writes:
>    Sounds good to me Peter, why don't you write it..

I'd love to.  Got an extra year or two you don't need :-)?  I could
sure use the time.
>    
>    Oh, and be sure to include lots of ram with the package

Of course, keeping it in ram would be best, but you could always keep
it on (preferably hard) disk.

> ...with MANX's precompiled symbol tables, I wouldn't need to read in 200
> lines of includes for a 10 line function...
>    You know, I bet this would be *almost* as fast as your idea Peter.

No, you'll still have to link the *WHOLE* program from scratch.  I'm
beginning to come to the conclusion that with current compiler
technology, one can make compile time pretty small.  But there's
nothing we can do about long link times.  Before we go off and build an
incremental compiler, I think an incremental linker would be a bigger
gain.

Anybody given any thought to an incremental linker?  How hard would
this be?
-- 
-Peter Schachte
pds@quintus.uucp
...!sun!quintus!pds