Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 15:26:04 +0100 From: Dieter <freebsd@sopwith.solgatos.com> To: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: amd64/127640: GCC will not build shared libraries with -fprofile-generate on amd64 Message-ID: <200810042226.WAA04290@sopwith.solgatos.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 26 Sep 2008 20:10:18 %2B0300." <20080926171018.GX47828@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Kostik writes: > > > Note that libgcov needs to be recompiled with -fPIC. > > > The R_X86_64_32 issue is systematic on amd64. When you build a shared > > > object, better make sure that all .o are compiled with -fPIC. > Should /usr/lib/libgcov.a be built with -fPIC, is debatable. I think it > is overkill for most other static libs from /usr/lib. I don't know what the pros and cons of -fPIC are, is there a case for libs with and without it? Having ports not build isn't acceptable. AMD64 isn't some rare and exotic architecture. > Note that there > are reasonable arguments against supplying static system libraries like > libc and libpthread. There are? I can't think of any. Mark writes: >> Ports should compile cleanly out of the box, on all archs, with no problems. > > A noble goal, but we are a long way from it, and rely on volunteers > to take maintainership of individual ports to make it happen. Does "tinderbox" build ports? Finding the problems as they are created should help a lot.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200810042226.WAA04290>