Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: > On 14.11.2008 19:54, ron minnich wrote: > >> On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Stefan Reinauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >>> Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: >>> >>> >>>> We're missing one crucial piece which is necessary to get PIC to work: >>>> The linker. PIC code must be linked _after_ its location is known. >>>> >>>> >>> That sounds absurd as it would totally defeat the purpose of PIC. >>> >>> It's position independent code exactly _because_ you can't know the >>> position at link time. >>> >>> >> actually, the GCC definiton of PIC is odd to say the least, as >> compared to what I used to call PIC. >> >> > > Remember what Segher said: We're (ab)using gcc on x86 in a way that was > never envisioned. >
... when we were jumping to fixed non-pic compiled code outside of our pic scope. I appreciate your scaremongering, but we should try not to confuse apples with pears when comparing apples and oranges. Stefan -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
