From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 28 20:44:08 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 3CE8416A420; Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:44:08 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCDF343D45; Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:44:07 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by elvis.mu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 844FC1A3C26; Tue, 28 Feb 2006 12:44:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C12DF5347B; Tue, 28 Feb 2006 15:44:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 15:44:06 -0500 From: Kris Kennaway To: Mikhail Teterin Message-ID: <20060228204406.GA86137@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> <1141156556.20664.66.camel@mteterin.us.murex.com> <20060228201124.GA85491@xor.obsecurity.org> <1141158688.20664.82.camel@mteterin.us.murex.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="pWyiEgJYm5f9v55/" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1141158688.20664.82.camel@mteterin.us.murex.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, gnome@FreeBSD.org, obrien@FreeBSD.org, Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: While we discuss libtool (-fpic vs. -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, 28 Feb 2006 20:44:08 -0000 --pWyiEgJYm5f9v55/ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 03:31:28PM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote: > ? ??, 2006-02-28 ? 15:11 -0500, Kris Kennaway ????: > > Where I said "-fPIC and not -fpic is correct on amd64 and ia64." On > > i386 they are equivalent. In fact now I'm not sure they're not > > equivalent on amd64 and ia64 too (in which case the current situation > > is still fine). >=20 > I don't think, they are equivalent. The lower-case variant is slightly > more efficient. It can not be used on sparc64, except for shared > libraries with very few symbols, but it is fine on other arches. info gcc says `-fPIC' If supported for the target machine, emit position-independent code, suitable for dynamic linking and avoiding any limit on the size of the global offset table. This option makes a difference on the m68k and the SPARC. i.e. does not make a difference elsewhere. > Here is a related thread at a PGSQL mailing list: >=20 > http://groups.google.com/group/pgsql.hackers/browse_thread/thread/4948c99= d980ee2bd/9781cee632f281bc?lnk=3Dst Which says the same thing I am, e.g.: -- The reason for -fpic vs -fPIC (on the machines where it makes any difference at all) is that the former is faster.=20 -- ^--e.g. on sparc and m68k. -- The thing is, on i386 it makes no difference, it's only on some archtechtures where it matters. And it has to do with both the size of the symbol table and the size of the code.=20 -- Also, Peter Wemm confirmed for me that -fpic and -fPIC are identical on amd64. Kris --pWyiEgJYm5f9v55/ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFEBLYVWry0BWjoQKURAt/VAJ9DaiyqcFq2sIUVPfjjZ0/31iNNmQCg6Ldo vu87JPVgG4P7NPt18RKq9/Q= =DGOg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --pWyiEgJYm5f9v55/--