On 29/05/13 02:03, Matthew Flatt wrote: > A drawback of adding `-fPIC' to the Racket build by default is that > everyone would pay a little of performance. For example, > > racket -c -l racket > > seems to take 5-8% longer when Racket is compiled with -fPIC. That's > probably about the worst-case hit, though, since loading `racket' from > source spends a lot of time in the C-implemented run-time system. An > example that spends all its time in JIT-generated code is unaffected. > (I also tried GC-intensive examples, but `-fPIC' doesn't seem to have > much effect on the Racket GC.)
I see, interesting... > Since the cost isn't so big, so I think it might be ok to add -fPIC to > the Ubuntu PPA's build. Another option is adding it as a default flag > for 64-bit Linux at the `configure' level, but that seems more complex. > > But how important is it in your context to use the PPA-supplied > "libracket3m.a"? You could build your own "libracket3m.a" from the > Racket source, suppling `CPPFLAGS=-fPIC' to `configure'. I've been trying to avoid maintaining my own racket package, but it sounds like that might be the best option at this stage. It's tempting to static link libracket3m - it does break the spirit of debian packaging, but the argument for this is a bit stronger as I'm only using a small proportion of what racket provides. Hmm, I will have a think... cheers, dave ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
