From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 7 23:14:03 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ports@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C910516A420 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2006 23:14:03 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from neuhauser@sigpipe.cz) Received: from isis.sigpipe.cz (fw.sigpipe.cz [62.245.70.224]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BCCC43D48 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2006 23:14:02 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from neuhauser@sigpipe.cz) Received: by isis.sigpipe.cz (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 257401F87BEE; Wed, 8 Mar 2006 00:14:01 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 00:14:01 +0100 From: Roman Neuhauser To: Kris Kennaway Message-ID: <20060307231400.GC4435@isis.sigpipe.cz> Mail-Followup-To: Kris Kennaway , Marcel Moolenaar , pfgshield-freebsd@yahoo.com, ports@freebsd.org References: <20060307192606.GA56153@xor.obsecurity.org> <20060307195849.70339.qmail@web32714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060307205455.GA11840@ns1.xcllnt.net> <20060307223525.GA4435@isis.sigpipe.cz> <20060307224803.GA66021@xor.obsecurity.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060307224803.GA66021@xor.obsecurity.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Cc: ports@freebsd.org, pfgshield-freebsd@yahoo.com, Marcel Moolenaar Subject: Re: amd64 and -fPIC X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 23:14:03 -0000 # kris@obsecurity.org / 2006-03-07 17:48:03 -0500: > On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 11:35:25PM +0100, Roman Neuhauser wrote: > > > > A generic port that only builds archive libraries better be PIC to > > > cover all bases. Performance cannot really be a concern when you're > > > working with generic parts. If performance is a concern, customization > > > is pretty much a given and the use of generic parts is almost always > > > abandoned. > > > > That's pretty much what I've been trying to say, except this version > > is much better. > > I like this version: > > "Computers are basically fast enough, so let's not worry about > negative performance effects and just go for what is convenient for > developers instead". Ok, is there a compromise? Someone mentioned installing both PDC and PIC versions under different names. There *are* situations when linking a static library into a shared one is desirable, and it would be nice if ports catered for this usage as well (they do, as a side effect, on i386 now). Perhaps ld could then grow intelligence to transform ld -shared -static -lfoo into ld -shared -static -lfoo_pic though I'm certainly out of my bailiwick here. -- How many Vietnam vets does it take to screw in a light bulb? You don't know, man. You don't KNOW. Cause you weren't THERE. http://bash.org/?255991