On Mon, 25 Oct 2010, Mark Mitchell wrote: > On 10/25/2010 10:34 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: > > > By the way, is there some necessity in accomplishing this by means of > > a linked library, as opposed to via a spawned objcopy process?
(elfcpp isn't a *linked* library; it's a C++ template library consisting entirely of headers, with no makefile code or .o or .a files.) > Probably none in theory, but it certainly seems messy and likely to be > slow in practice. Is there a reason that this would be desirable? Well, slow on hosts where process creation is slow (just like the separate gcc/cc1/as/collect2/ld/lto-wrapper/... processes). The separate process design was probably based on process creation being fast - although separate processes do have security and potentially parallelism advantages over using libraries for everything. (It probably wouldn't be hard to support linking more of the separate programs into one for hosts where this helps; cf. the past MVS discussions.) -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
