Re: [Mingw-users] Re: supplement to ...undefined reference to '_imp__FT_ListDevices@12'

[Wu Y. <ad...@ne...>]

> Michael Gerdau wrote:
>
>> I strongly prefer 2.15.91 over 2.14.90 because the former contains
>> numerous enhancements - last not least the speed of the linker had
>> been increased by at least a magnitude (you'll recognize if you
>> regularly build large c++ projects). This enhancement alone changed
>> it from "barely useable" to "ok".

For a complete record, the benchmarking result for my 30-file project does 
not show advantage of ld 2.15.91.  First-time linking takes 12s and 19s, 
respectively, for 2.14.90 and 2.15.91, later linking takes 7s and 8s, and 
peak memory usage is 15MB and 19MB.

So for me, the choice is obvious.  Although I guess things could change 
for bigger projects.

Best regards,

Yongwei