On Thu, 21 Mar 2002, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> > On most architectures, it doesn't really matter except for heavy
> > mathematics and 3D. The only exception is i386, where the performance
> > decrease is actually measurable.
> Do you really mean "i386", or do you mean "ix86"?
> Is there a perform
On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 02:27:45PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Will Newton wrote:
>
> [PIC or not PIC]
>
> > I understand the need for PIC, but I was asking whether or not compiling
> > whole binaries with PIC unnecesarily might be a bad thing. e.g. if I cannot
> > control
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Will Newton wrote:
[PIC or not PIC]
> I understand the need for PIC, but I was asking whether or not compiling
> whole binaries with PIC unnecesarily might be a bad thing. e.g. if I cannot
> control the granularity of compiler options easily in a build system and I
> build an
On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 02:27:45PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Will Newton wrote:
>
> [PIC or not PIC]
>
> > I understand the need for PIC, but I was asking whether or not compiling
> > whole binaries with PIC unnecesarily might be a bad thing. e.g. if I cannot
> > control
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Will Newton wrote:
[PIC or not PIC]
> I understand the need for PIC, but I was asking whether or not compiling
> whole binaries with PIC unnecesarily might be a bad thing. e.g. if I cannot
> control the granularity of compiler options easily in a build system and I
> build a
On Thursday 21 Mar 2002 1:07 am, Michel LESPINASSE wrote:
> For debian shared libraries, yes.
> For programs and static libraries, you should avoid using -fPIC.
Thanks, I appreciate the advice. It makes my life a bit easier too. :)
On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 11:11:10PM +, Will Newton wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 Mar 2002 11:00 pm, Michel LESPINASSE wrote:
> > I'd like to add that some architectures (including x86) do not actualy
> > require that you use -fPIC for shared libraries. If you choose to do
> > that, the benefits are t
On Wednesday 20 Mar 2002 11:00 pm, Michel LESPINASSE wrote:
> I'd like to add that some architectures (including x86) do not actualy
> require that you use -fPIC for shared libraries. If you choose to do
> that, the benefits are that you dont pay the overhead of -fPIC code,
> the drawbacks however
On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 06:00:35PM +, Will Newton wrote:
> I understand the need for PIC, but I was asking whether or not compiling
> whole binaries with PIC unnecesarily might be a bad thing. e.g. if I cannot
> control the granularity of compiler options easily in a build system and I
> bui
On Thursday 21 Mar 2002 1:07 am, Michel LESPINASSE wrote:
> For debian shared libraries, yes.
> For programs and static libraries, you should avoid using -fPIC.
Thanks, I appreciate the advice. It makes my life a bit easier too. :)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 11:11:10PM +, Will Newton wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 Mar 2002 11:00 pm, Michel LESPINASSE wrote:
> > I'd like to add that some architectures (including x86) do not actualy
> > require that you use -fPIC for shared libraries. If you choose to do
> > that, the benefits are
On Wednesday 20 Mar 2002 11:00 pm, Michel LESPINASSE wrote:
> I'd like to add that some architectures (including x86) do not actualy
> require that you use -fPIC for shared libraries. If you choose to do
> that, the benefits are that you dont pay the overhead of -fPIC code,
> the drawbacks howeve
On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 06:00:35PM +, Will Newton wrote:
> I understand the need for PIC, but I was asking whether or not compiling
> whole binaries with PIC unnecesarily might be a bad thing. e.g. if I cannot
> control the granularity of compiler options easily in a build system and I
> bu
On Wednesday 20 Mar 2002 5:46 pm, Simon Richter wrote:
> In general, you need to compile everything that could be mapped at
> arbitrary addresses (in the process's virtual address space) with the
> -fPIC option to make it position independent (whatever that means for the
> target platform). Progra
Hi,
on Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Will Newton wrote:
> Is it valid to compile an executable with -fPIC?
> Can anyone tell me which architectures require -fPIC?
In general, you need to compile everything that could be mapped at
arbitrary addresses (in the process's virtual address space) with the
-fPIC op
On Wednesday 20 Mar 2002 5:46 pm, Simon Richter wrote:
> In general, you need to compile everything that could be mapped at
> arbitrary addresses (in the process's virtual address space) with the
> -fPIC option to make it position independent (whatever that means for the
> target platform). Progr
Hi,
on Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Will Newton wrote:
> Is it valid to compile an executable with -fPIC?
> Can anyone tell me which architectures require -fPIC?
In general, you need to compile everything that could be mapped at
arbitrary addresses (in the process's virtual address space) with the
-fPIC o
Is it valid to compile an executable with -fPIC?
Can anyone tell me which architectures require -fPIC?
Thanks,
Is it valid to compile an executable with -fPIC?
Can anyone tell me which architectures require -fPIC?
Thanks,
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
19 matches
Mail list logo
