Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 14:55:56 -0500 From: Mikhail Teterin <mi+mxe@aldan.algebra.com> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, gnome@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: While we discuss libtool (-fpic vs. -fPIC) Message-ID: <1141156556.20664.66.camel@mteterin.us.murex.com> In-Reply-To: <20060228195014.GA85269@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <1141151381.20664.19.camel@mteterin.us.murex.com> <20060228192453.GA84695@xor.obsecurity.org> <1141155894.20664.59.camel@mteterin.us.murex.com> <20060228195014.GA85269@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
=F5 =D7=D4, 2006-02-28 =D5 14:50 -0500, Kris Kennaway =D0=C9=DB=C5:
> > > Not sure what you're requesting precisely, but -fPIC and not -fpic
> is
> > > correct on amd64 and ia64.
> >=20
> > I'm requesting, libtool is changed to use `-fpic' instead of `-fPIC'
> > on all arches except sparc64. This is more efficient, and is what
> > bsd.lib.mk does:
> >=20
> > .if !defined(PICFLAG)
> > .if ${MACHINE_ARCH} =3D=3D "sparc64"
> > PICFLAG=3D-fPIC
> > .else
> > PICFLAG=3D-fpic
> > .endif
> > .endif
> >=20
> > The performance difference is slight, and is not worth chasing every
> > shared-library building port. But if we can improve hundreds of
> > ports at once by correcting libtool, we certainly should.
>=20
> OK, that's wrong then, as above.
What is "wrong" and which part of the "above" are you referring to?
-mi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1141156556.20664.66.camel>