provided by the linker on various platform are not unique. This means,
this new tool needs to support all such features and platforms in one
super tool or a separate tool per platform is required. This increases
- maintance cost for link time optimizer significantly, which is not
+ maintenance cost for link time optimizer significantly, which is not
necessary. This approach also requires staying synchronized with linker
developements on various platforms, which is not the main focus of the link
time optimizer. Finally, this approach increases end user's build time due
user-supplied information, such as a list of exported symbols. LLVM
optimizer collects control flow information, data flow information and knows
much more about program structure from the optimizer's point of view.
- Our goal is to take advantage of tight intergration between the linker and
+ Our goal is to take advantage of tight integration between the linker and
the optimizer by sharing this information during various linking phases.
</p>
</div>
<p>In this phase, the linker reads optimized a native object file and
updates the internal global symbol table to reflect any changes. The linker
also collects information about any changes in use of external symbols by
- LLVM bitcode files. In the examle above, the linker notes that
+ LLVM bitcode files. In the example above, the linker notes that
<tt>foo4()</tt> is not used any more. If dead code stripping is enabled then
the linker refreshes the live symbol information appropriately and performs
dead code stripping.</p>