From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Nov 8 14:54:32 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from ns.mt.sri.com (ns.mt.sri.com [206.127.79.91]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 550FE152CC for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:54:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nate@mt.sri.com) Received: from mt.sri.com (rocky.mt.sri.com [206.127.76.100]) by ns.mt.sri.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA15821 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 15:54:13 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from nate@rocky.mt.sri.com) Received: by mt.sri.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA02935; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 15:54:11 -0700 Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 15:54:11 -0700 Message-Id: <199911082254.PAA02935@mt.sri.com> From: Nate Williams MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Using non-PIC code in shared libraries? X-Mailer: VM 6.34 under 19.16 "Lille" XEmacs Lucid Reply-To: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams) Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG What happens when this is done? Can it ever work? How about the reverse, where you link in PIC compiled libraries into static (.a) libraries? Does this work? Assuming it works (in either case) are there any performance hits/advantages to either? My impression from past discussions is that you can't use non-PIC code in shared libraries (it won't work), and that you can use PIC code in static libraries, but you take a performance hit for it... Am I right? Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message