David S. Miller wrote: > > Why does it matter? Jakub has shown how to get the same kind of > non-PIC relocations you want in the GL libraries by using private > versions of symbols.
Using a feature that is "a very new thing" (to quote Jakub) -- only "GCC 3.2 (mainline CVS), the Red Hat GCC 3.1 package and gcc-2.96-RH >= 2.96-108" support this. > Also, the PIC register argument is bogus too. I know for a fact that > current GCC will fully allow allocation of the x86 PIC register > if you make no references to PIC relocatable data. %99 of functions > in an OpenGL implementation will get full use of the PIC register, > _ESPECIALLY_ if you use the privatization symbol tricks Jakub > mentioned. > > It should be rare to reference PIC symbols from within OpenGL if done > properly, thus the PIC register and the relocation arguments are null > and void. That may be so, using a bleeding-edge version of GCC, but you haven't answered my question. Besides, moving a workstation-quality OpenGL driver to a new compiler like this, just to avoid the penalties associated with -fPIC, is not something done lightly. I know for a fact that versions of gcc-2.96-RH have produced a non-functional driver for me in the past (missing triangles while running Viewperf, etc). -- Gareth _______________________________________________________________ Don't miss the 2002 Sprint PCS Application Developer's Conference August 25-28 in Las Vegas -- http://devcon.sprintpcs.com/adp/index.cfm _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
