On Wed, 23 Jun 1999, Thomas Tanner wrote:
>
> On 23-Jun-99 Keith Whitwell wrote:
> >> > I wouldn't mind an option to compile without -fPIC. I hardly ever run
> >> > two programs that use Mesa at once, so I don't really care if the
> >> > library has some dirty pages. (IIRC, -fPIC is around 5-10% slower.)
> >> pic-code is faster for shared libraries.
> >> If you don't like pic-code, use the static library.
> > Umm, not exactly. PIC code loses a register and forces an extra jump in
> > routine which reference other symbols in the pic library.
>
> Well, I should better say:
> In general, pic-code is faster for shared libraries, because
> the dynamic linker doesn't need to resolve all the relocations
> every time the program is run, and the library code can be shared
> between several processes, which saves memory (and is the purpose of
> shared libraries). So, why not simply link against the static library?
>
> > It is possible to build a non-pic .so which is much more convient than
> > linking to a static library --
>
> That's not portable (trust me, I'm libtool maintainer).
> Why is linking against a static library less convenient?
For higher level libraries, it's no big deal - but for a hardware-specific
library like Mesa, you don't want people to link to it statically because
that means you can't ship code binaries from machine to machine unless
they have identical graphics adaptors.
Steve Baker (817)619-2657 (Vox/Vox-Mail)
Raytheon Systems Inc. (817)619-2466 (Fax)
Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.hti.com
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://web2.airmail.net/sjbaker1
_______________________________________________
Mesa-dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.mesa3d.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
