Old story (30 years ago)

[Cut Hour]

Hi, Nick,
>> I don't know very well about Clang or LLVM.  So this might be
>> already out of date.  Any need for this extended ELF do you think?
>
> I would say probably not.  Obviously support for high level languages
> is already working with ELF as it is.  So if it isn't broken - don't
> fix it.

It might be broken if we want to only recompile basically touched source
files like the programming in C.  Or is this cleared in LLVM?

> This is not to say that exploring the idea is not worthwhile.  It
> might produce some interesting results.  But I would be hesitant about
> applying it to a generic tool like the linker without a real need.

I myself had needed it.  My plan was like this.  Every instance has a
ptr to its class.  Every class has a method table (array of ptr to
function).  All methods are called via a ptr in the method table.
The syntax is almost the same as ObjC.  Binutils (for the structured
programming) is what makes this simplest OO language so hard to come
by.  Neither C++ nor ObjC nor Java pointed that out.  Again, is this
cleared in LLVM?