>> I know that PIC code is 'supposed' to be better in that it can be loaded
>> into memory without regard to the actual location or layout. Why should
>> static libraries be built without -fPIC, and who's policy is it anyway?
>
>Debian's. I guess the reason is that PIC code usually performs worse
>than non-PIC code (at least on weird architectures like i386) and that
>static libraries are usually linked directly into applications.
>
And this would be because Intel chose their own MM structure rather than
using the standard MM systems everyone else uses?
>> And why are static lib's being linked into shared objects?
>
>Because some shared libraries (or plugins, or whatever) use some X
>extension libraries which are only available in static form. But non-PIC
>code in a shared object is a bad idea, it (like so many things...) only
>works on i386 (and maybe some other architectures) by coincidence. On
>other architectures, this causes build or run time errors.
>
So the real problem is that XFree86 should be providing shared versions of
these libraries that can be compiled with -fPIC and linked into shared
objects properly? I suppose that's one of those 'easier said than done'
things.
Thanks again for the details. It helps me understand what is happening
better so I can give better explainations when people ask these questions.
Cheers,
John Gay
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
