From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Nov 9 13: 6:28 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from herring.nlsystems.com (nlsys.demon.co.uk [158.152.125.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25CA514A1B for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 13:05:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dfr@nlsystems.com) Received: from salmon.nlsystems.com (salmon.nlsystems.com [10.0.0.3]) by herring.nlsystems.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA92044; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 21:07:18 GMT (envelope-from dfr@nlsystems.com) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 21:07:18 +0000 (GMT) From: Doug Rabson To: Assar Westerlund Cc: Nate Williams , freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Using non-PIC code in shared libraries? In-Reply-To: <5l9048gffg.fsf@assaris.sics.se> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 9 Nov 1999, Assar Westerlund wrote: > Nate Williams writes: > > How about the reverse, where you link in PIC compiled libraries into > > static (.a) libraries? Does this work? > > Sure. Look at how lib${LIB}_pic.a is done i . PIC-code > is less efficient than non-PIC code. True for x86. For alpha, all code is PIC but the extra registers available reduce the overhead considerably. -- Doug Rabson Mail: dfr@nlsystems.com Nonlinear Systems Ltd. Phone: +44 181 442 9037 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message