From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Aug 30 19:47:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA14266 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 30 Aug 1997 19:47:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dyson.iquest.net (dyson.iquest.net [198.70.144.127]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA14261; Sat, 30 Aug 1997 19:47:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dyson.iquest.net (8.8.6/8.8.5) id VAA27134; Sat, 30 Aug 1997 21:46:58 -0500 (EST) From: "John S. Dyson" Message-Id: <199708310246.VAA27134@dyson.iquest.net> Subject: Re: PIC (was: shared libraries?) In-Reply-To: <199708310233.TAA00415@ducky.net> from Mike Haertel at "Aug 30, 97 07:33:49 pm" To: mike@ducky.net (Mike Haertel) Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 21:46:58 -0500 (EST) Cc: dyson@FreeBSD.ORG, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL31 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Mike Haertel said: > > One thing that's always baffled me is, why does gcc insist > on *dedicating* a register for the global offset table pointer? > > I would hope that instead of dedicating a register, they would > just make the global offset table pointer a regular variable > subject to register allocation just like any other variable. > Then, code that doesn't use global variables wouldn't be hurt > by being put in a shared library. > Good idea. It appears that the GCC folks are moving much faster now, and perhaps, maybe they'll look into that some day :-). -- John dyson@freebsd.org jdyson@nc.com