how to decrease link time

[baibaichen]

i know that pImpl idiom can decrease compile time, but Is there any
good practice/idiom to decrease link time?

any reference or any idea is appreciated

thanks

[red floyd]

baibaichen wrote:

i know that pImpl idiom can decrease compile time, but Is there any
good practice/idiom to decrease link time?

any reference or any idea is appreciated

Link time is so minimal compared to compile time and totally negligible
compared to run time.

Design instead for maintainability . pImpl provides support for this, by
divorcing implementation and interface. The compile time benefits (if
any) are just icing on the cake.

[Shezan Baig]

baibaichen wrote:

i know that pImpl idiom can decrease compile time, but Is there any
good practice/idiom to decrease link time?

any reference or any idea is appreciated

The best advice I can give is do not create cyclic dependencies in your
modules.

Hope this helps,
-shez-

[Dave Townsend]

"baibaichen " <ba********@gma il.com> wrote in message
news:11******** **************@ f14g2000cwb.goo glegroups.com.. .

i know that pImpl idiom can decrease compile time, but Is there any
good practice/idiom to decrease link time?

any reference or any idea is appreciated

thanks

This is a bit platform dependent. But you could use dll/shared libraries to
a greater extent
so linking of the "executable " can be minimized to just the externals
provided by the libraries.
I've not noticed a problem with links on Windows or Red Hat Linux, maybe if
you use HP or
IBM you might have some long link jobs.

Perhaps you could use static functions where appropriate, but I suspect this
like trying to lose
weight by cutting your fingernails.

dave

[Mike Wahler]

"red floyd" <no*****@here.d ude> wrote in message
news:%0******** ***********@new ssvr25.news.pro digy.net...

baibaichen wrote:

i know that pImpl idiom can decrease compile time, but Is there any
good practice/idiom to decrease link time?

any reference or any idea is appreciated

Link time is so minimal compared to compile time and totally negligible
compared to run time.

<OT>

I've found that this depends upon the project. I've
worked on projects which used several large third-party
libraries. Link time was considerably longer than
compile time. This ratio was made even larger because
I often would suppy the compiler with several source files
at a time, which meant the compiler was only invoked once.

As always, YMMV.

</OT>

-Mike

[Rolf Magnus]

red floyd wrote:

baibaichen wrote:

i know that pImpl idiom can decrease compile time, but Is there any
good practice/idiom to decrease link time?

any reference or any idea is appreciated

Link time is so minimal compared to compile time and totally negligible
compared to run time.

Design instead for maintainability . pImpl provides support for this, by
divorcing implementation and interface. The compile time benefits (if
any) are just icing on the cake.

I have a different view on that. I hate writing code for an hour and then
searching for the erros for several hours because I did so many changes at
once. So I usually rather change my code in many small steps.
Each time, I have to compile the program to try whether it's ok. If compile
time is long, it slows me down considerably.

[Dietmar Kuehl]

baibaichen wrote:

any reference or any idea is appreciated

In general, reducing the dependencies between modules improves both
compile and link time, sometimes removing the need to compile and/or
link certain parts of the application altogether (the latter is the
case when using shared libraries/DLLs where only this objects needs
to be linked). The pimpl idiom is just one approach to reduce
dependencies, there are several others. John Lakos' "Large Scale C++"
(Addison-Wesley) presents several decoupling techniques.
--
<mailto:di***** ******@yahoo.co m> <http://www.dietmar-kuehl.de/>
<http://www.eai-systems.com> - Efficient Artificial Intelligence

[JustBoo]

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 13:38:03 +0100, Rolf Magnus <ra******@t-online.de>
wrote:

I have a different view on that. I hate writing code for an hour and then
searching for the erros for several hours because I did so many changes at
once. So I usually rather change my code in many small steps.
Each time, I have to compile the program to try whether it's ok. If compile
time is long, it slows me down considerably.

This follows the Refactoring Methodologies outlined in Martin Fowlers
book. Hey, they have a webpage:

http://www.refactoring.com/

Good Stuff.

[Thomas Maier-Komor]

baibaichen wrote:

i know that pImpl idiom can decrease compile time, but Is there any
good practice/idiom to decrease link time?

any reference or any idea is appreciated

thanks

if you are using the GNU toolchain, you might take an alternative
compiler/linker combination into consideration. The GNU linker is known
to be slooooooow...

Tom

[red floyd]

Rolf Magnus wrote:

red floyd wrote:

Design instead for maintainability . pImpl provides support for this, by
divorcing implementation and interface. The compile time benefits (if
any) are just icing on the cake.

I have a different view on that. I hate writing code for an hour and then
searching for the erros for several hours because I did so many changes at
once. So I usually rather change my code in many small steps.
Each time, I have to compile the program to try whether it's ok. If compile
time is long, it slows me down considerably.

And two years down the line, when you have to spend three days searching
for the bug your clever link optimization caused, or you're dealing with
a portability issue (you need to port to a different OS) caused by your
clever link optimization, you'll have wasted much more time.

Not to mention that to fix said bug, you'll probably have to refactor
etc... Design for mainainability.