On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 07:49:25PM +0000, Frederic Riss wrote: > friss added a comment. > > Just because it makes the behavior more intuitive? If you toolchain > does PIC by default, it's because you are mostly building shared > objects. When you are building a static object, it's highly likely > that you don't need PIC. There should be a way to enable it, but I > find it really awkward to have to spell "clang -static -fno-PIC" to > get the intuitive behavior.
There is nothing wrong with linking PIC as static binary. In some cases that can even result in more compact binaries. The only platforms I know that default to PIC are some RISC architectures like PPC or MIPS, where the overhead of materializing immediates is comparable to indirect calls. Most people don't use single-step compilation anyway, so your change would be just more puzzling. Why does clang -c && clang -static give different results than clang -static? Joerg _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
