Ian Lance Taylor <ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > But it's not a lot more efficient. What strategy would you use for keeping a large amount of code up to date with maximum efficiency? There's that library shortcut I mentioned, and of course writing separate executables for separate tasks instead of one huge monolithic blob. Should I even be worried about link level efficiency? I notice there are a lot of ways to minimize efficiency of compiling, only recompiling what is necessary. Perhaps if the linker can't deal with it the program is just too big to be feasible? Starling
