On Sat, Jun 16, 2001 at 12:53:08PM -0600, Erik Andersen wrote:
> On Sat Jun 16, 2001 at 10:52:25AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 16, 2001 at 02:55:30PM +0100, Philip Blundell wrote:
> > > >Wouldn't building the .so with non-PIC break quite a few things?
> > >
> > > Shouldn't do, as far as I can see. Anything in particular you are thinking of?
> >
> > Isn't PIC used for a reason in shared libs? :)
>
> No. The reason we compile pic libs is so that mklibs.sh can
> reduce them and relink the result into a new shared lib. A
> shared lib that is not going to be reduced by mklibs.sh, need
> not be pic and will work just fine. Pic code is bigger then
> non-pic code, but the advantage is that we can relink it after
> ripping stuff out.
Uh, wrong. We compile _all_ shared libs using -fPIC (IOW, every .so).
That has nothing to do with mklibs.sh, it has to do with being a shared
lib. If you try to link a .so with non-PIC objects, some architectures
will barf all of the resulting library.
Ben
--
-----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=------
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
