Boehne, Robert schrieb:
Guido,
Can you show me an example of a situation where there is
pic and non-pic code created by a compiler that doesn't define
some preprocessor macro for PIC?
no, I can not. ;-O but that's perhaps gcc derivates are
used so widely in today's industry for special targets
which did wipe the old c89-type c compilers off the market.
In effect, I'm sure there _were_ some of those, but I can
not show you _an example_. (wasn't there notice that gcc
is going to ansi-c-fy its sources after all....yeah,
modern times...*g*), perhaps it's not worth to care
about ten years old compilers, that's quite right. Atleast,
_I_ wouldnt... :-)=8
Then if you find one, does it support inline assembler?
I have a hard time believing there is anyone out there using
Libtool who is going to be burned if they change "PIC" to
"__PIC__ || __pic__" in their code, and we drop it entirely.
Maybe I'll volunteer to fix every instance that it would. ;)
all of these instances are abuse of the current behaviour,
however I do doubt you want to change all of them. :-)=)
there are perhaps a bit a lot of them.
Actually, I can get away with having a bunch of autoconf'macros
around that can resurrect the old (or similar) behaviour for those
that depend on differentiations for pic/non-pic and static-
compile / shared-compile. e.g. AC_ENABLE_SHARED(-DSHARED).
So instead of using an unwarranted behaviour it would need to
be made explicit in the source setup - and people would try
harder to use different options than these. It's surely the
existance of -DPIC on the commandline that made developers
to just pick it up, 'cause it's so easy and 'been around so
long. :-))
-- cheers, guido
Robert
-----Original Message-----
From: Guido Draheim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 9:51 AM
To: Boehne, Robert
Cc: Simon Richter; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: Problem on rs6000-ibm-aix4.3.2.0 (Fortran)
-DPIC
Boehne, Robert schrieb:
>
> IMHO, I have yet to see an example of how it could be useful
> to define "PIC" when it seems that the only way to make use of
> it is to have it surround severely implementation-specific stuff
> like inline assembler in which case the compiler _should_ be defining
> "__PIC__" or some similar symbol.
I've abused it a number of times for "#ifdef SHARED", i.e. to
distinguish the current $COMPILE as being for .o/.a or some
.lo/.la/.so - how to mimic such without -DPIC?
_______________________________________________
Libtool mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
