harry voldermort at hotmail.com
Wed Dec 18 15:27:44 UTC 2013

Brandon Allbery wrote
> I don't understand the question. Whether a library is split-objs or not
> does not affect how you link an executable, only the space/time efficiency
> trade-off of doing so. And while in theory you might see improvements by
> split-objs-ing an executable, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to
> include dead code in an executable in the first place (whereas
> functionality of a library that you aren't using is dead for *your* use
> but
> not for other consumers of the library).

I don't understand the answer :-)

Let's say library A exports functions a1 and a2. I build the library with
--split-objs, so a1 and a2 go into separate object files. I also have an
executable B that imports A(a1). When I link B, I would expect that it only
includes A.a1. However, A.a2 has also got in. (At least that's what's
happened according to the bug report on Cabal.)

Is this the expected behaviour? Am I doing something wrong?

View this message in context: http://haskell.1045720.n5.nabble.com/split-objs-tp5741209p5741215.html
Sent from the Haskell - Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list