Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 15:49:14 -0500 From: Mikhail Teterin <mi+mxe@aldan.algebra.com> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, gnome@FreeBSD.org, obrien@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: While we discuss libtool (-fpic vs. -fPIC) Message-ID: <1141159754.20664.89.camel@mteterin.us.murex.com> In-Reply-To: <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> <20060228204406.GA86137@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
=F5 =D7=D4, 2006-02-28 =D5 15:44 -0500, Kris Kennaway =D0=C9=DB=C5: > 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 > -- >=20 > Also, Peter Wemm confirmed for me that -fpic and -fPIC are identical > on amd64. Mmm, this may be right... bsd.lib.mk's taking special care to use -fpic is what confused me. We should still use -DPIC for consistency, but very few files compile differently based on that define. -mi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1141159754.20664.89.camel>