Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le mardi 23 février 2010 à 20:32 +0100, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
>> Anyway, there are often good reasons to use x86 on modern hardware >> (think about laptops and smaller VPSes). > > You mean, like saving memory? > > Wait… wouldn’t you save more memory by using shared libraries and PIC > code? I fear you are wasting your wit. Please, convince me that using PIC is the right thing. I know non-PIC code wastes memory. It makes administering an selinux system harder. It adds to per-process startup time. [1] Unfortunately, a realistic scenario where this makes xz much more painful to use hasn’t occured to me and I am not sure how to quantify these effects and weigh them against a running time difference that is noticeable. Relevant context: - the text size of liblzma on i386 is only 128 KiB; - unless I hear some overwhelming reason to, I am not interested in turning liblzma.so on the i386 into a non-PIC library. I am just trying to decide whether to link xz to the .a or the .so on i386; - there is another binary in the same package that links to liblzma.so already. If linking to the .so would help with security support or something, just let me know and I’ll do it. Thanks, Jonathan [1] These effects are briefly explained in <http://people.redhat.com/drepper/dsohowto.pdf>, for example. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100223223110.ga8...@progeny.tock
