Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 17:48:03 -0500 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net>, pfgshield-freebsd@yahoo.com, ports@freebsd.org, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: amd64 and -fPIC Message-ID: <20060307224803.GA66021@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <20060307223525.GA4435@isis.sigpipe.cz> References: <20060307192606.GA56153@xor.obsecurity.org> <20060307195849.70339.qmail@web32714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060307205455.GA11840@ns1.xcllnt.net> <20060307223525.GA4435@isis.sigpipe.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--YiEDa0DAkWCtVeE4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 11:35:25PM +0100, Roman Neuhauser wrote: > > A generic port that only builds archive libraries better be PIC to > > cover all bases. Performance cannot really be a concern when you're > > working with generic parts. If performance is a concern, customization > > is pretty much a given and the use of generic parts is almost always > > abandoned. >=20 > That's pretty much what I've been trying to say, except this version > is much better. I like this version: "Computers are basically fast enough, so let's not worry about negative performance effects and just go for what is convenient for developers instead". Kris --YiEDa0DAkWCtVeE4 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFEDg2jWry0BWjoQKURAl+KAJ92SwBm/Ix22PbK/gIxIvbRs9ARjQCgjS3C fmv8sggaoZFpZLD6vYNIZ24= =SMbv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --YiEDa0DAkWCtVeE4--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060307224803.GA66021>