Michel LESPINASSE wrote: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 06:11:47AM +0100, Samuel Hocevar wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2000, Ben Collins wrote: > > > IMO, the better way would be if the CPU intensive portions were in a > > > shared library (even if the library is only used for this application). > > > Then you could have one binary program, and do what libc6 does for > > > optimized libs: > > > This looks very elegant, but I'm afraid that the performance gain > > brougth by the 686 compilation might get countered by the lost register > > caused by -fPIC. > > Two things : > > * shared objects do not actually have to be built with -fPIC. They > work fine without it (on x86 at least). libtool can be a pain if you > try to use it, but thats all.
Unfortunately, this breaks on some architectures, e.g. ARM (like, it won't run at all). Which would be a good reason for this rule in Policy. I suppose you could put in some kind of condition which uses -fPIC on ARM and not on the others, if you don't mind bending the rules a bit. -Adam P.
