Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 16:12:52 -0800 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> To: Joseph Fenton <jlfenton@citlink.net> Cc: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CFLAGS+= -fPIC per default? Message-ID: <20040223001252.GA79774@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> In-Reply-To: <40393E7C.2000300@citlink.net> References: <20040222185212.EB6BE16A4D1@hub.freebsd.org> <40391EC6.7010808@citlink.net> <20040222220210.GA54064@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> <40393010.4090402@citlink.net> <20040222231735.GA79618@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> <40393E7C.2000300@citlink.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 04:42:52PM -0700, Joseph Fenton wrote: > > > >You fail to see the point. PC relative relocations are not > >guaranteed to be without relocation and hence are not by > >definition PIC. > > > That makes no sense. Just not to you. You even use this in your argument by differentiating between intra- and inter-section addressing. The reason my words do not make sense to you is that you map it onto your own point of view as if we're approaching this from the same angle, but all you're seeing is the mismatch between my words and your PoV. I suggest you step away from depicting the final code when you implicitly do away with all the uncertainties that a compiler needs to work with, to which the -fPIC applies anyway and how it affects the behaviour of the compiler. -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040223001252.GA79774>