Thomas Tanner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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.
I think the situation I specified (only one copy running) would
obviously not benefit from being pic.
> > 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?
How can I make a non-pic static library with libtool?
> > 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?
I know it isn't portable. It's a Linux specific feature that I want
to use.
Josh
_______________________________________________
Mesa-dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.mesa3d.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
