Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!ists!yunexus!maccs!cs4g6ag From: cs4g6ag@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Stephen M. Dunn) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: MASM Linker question Message-ID: <25DAFF75.2471@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca> Date: 15 Feb 90 19:13:56 GMT References: <1123@crpmks.UUCP> Reply-To: cs4g6ag@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Stephen M. Dunn) Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario Lines: 23 In article <1123@crpmks.UUCP> garyb@crpmks.UUCP (Gary Blumenstein) writes: $Could someone offer a plausible explaination as to why the linker $is so much bigger than MASM.EXE? My guess is that the linker needs $more workspace than the assembler (but for what?). Another guess $is that it must somehow link object code with routines in DOS when $programming with interrupts, therefore there might be "libraries" $built in to the linker making it larger? I don't know what versions of MASM and LINK you're using ... my MASM V4.00 is 83165 bytes, and none of my LINKs is bigger than 50531 bytes (V3.55). A stripped-to-the-bones linker can come in under 10K (check out Borland's TLINK.EXE from Turbo C 1.0 - it's 9753 bytes); I would imagine that more recent versions of the DOS linker (which handle overlays) would have to have the overlay manager built-in, but even that shouldn't add too much to the size. -- Stephen M. Dunn cs4g6ag@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca = "\nI'm only an undergraduate!!!\n"; **************************************************************************** I Think I'm Going Bald - Caress of Steel, Rush