On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 12:10:00PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Mon, 07 Mar 2005, Paul Brossier wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 02:05:44PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > > > >> Why do you insist to have that code be position-independant ? > > > > I could say because it is a 'must' in the debian policy, but... > > > There is no such requirement in the Policy. 8-) > > > > 10.2. Libraries > > --------------- > > > > The shared version of a library must be compiled with `-fPIC', and the > > static version must not be. In other words, each source unit (`*.c', > > for example, for C files) will need to be compiled twice. > > > > hrm, but yeah of course, one could say that it's fine if a > > library compiled with -fPIC still contains non position > > independant code. :)
This is my interpretation of policy, fwiw (that policy require libraries to be build with -fPIC, not to be position-independant.). > Just a small question: does the system KNOW an object compiled with -fPIC > but which contains non-PIC code must be treated as a non-PIC object? If it > does, then yes, it really should not be a major problem to leave the non-PIC > code in place. The lib would not be prelinkable, but that is no major loss. Yes, the static linker take care of it. Please note that prelinking require slightly less than position-independance, so in fact the library might end up being prelinkable while not PIC. Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
