From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 28 21:31:33 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 DA4F616A420; Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:31:33 +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 848FD43D46; Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:31:33 +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 613CE1A3C27; Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:31:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E27A4517BC; Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:31:31 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:31:31 -0500 From: Kris Kennaway To: Mikhail Teterin Message-ID: <20060228213131.GB86137@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> <1141159754.20664.89.camel@mteterin.us.murex.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="f2QGlHpHGjS2mn6Y" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1141159754.20664.89.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 21:31:34 -0000 --f2QGlHpHGjS2mn6Y Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 03:49:14PM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote: > ? ??, 2006-02-28 ? 15:44 -0500, Kris Kennaway ????: > > 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. >=20 > Mmm, this may be right... bsd.lib.mk's taking special care to use -fpic > is what confused me. >=20 > We should still use -DPIC for consistency, but very few files compile > differently based on that define. In fact I'd say none will (except those that might break by having it defined unexpectedly), because any port that needs to define -DPIC that in order to conditionally compile PIC code must already be doing so, or it'd be broken out of the box. kris --f2QGlHpHGjS2mn6Y Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFEBMEzWry0BWjoQKURAsMhAKDHsVe2smMinvVUD3BkRwtXtNT8UQCcCMlM RDHfC4f+n79VIwnn203EJPA= =Hfie -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --f2QGlHpHGjS2mn6Y--