Re: -fPIC

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: -fPIC
Date: 2005-09-11 20:57:05
Message-ID: 20050911205705.GB6026@ns.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

* Peter Eisentraut (peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net) wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > The reason for -fpic vs -fPIC (on the machines where it makes any
> > difference at all) is that the former is faster.
>
> I don't doubt that, but out of curiosity, considering that everyone else
> is using libtool, and libtool always uses -fPIC, what kind of impact
> does this *really* have?

I certainly wouldn't assume something done in libtool is necessairly the
'smart' approach, ever.

> > I think the correct answer is for PL/Java to do s/-fpic/-fPIC/ on
> > CFLAGS in its Makefile, rather than trying to force the same on
> > everything else.
>
> That would certainly work, but is that the kind of interface we want to
> offer? In the extreme case, a module could end up redefining a great
> deal of the shared library knowledge that it was supposed to not have
> to care about.

I don't think it's all that sane to expect a generalized build system to
support every possible library compilation requirement...

Thanks,

Stephen

In response to

  • Re: -fPIC at 2005-09-11 17:11:18 from Peter Eisentraut

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Fuhr 2005-09-11 20:57:07 Re: problem for o/p
Previous Message Hans-Jürgen Schönig 2005-09-11 19:37:25 Re: random system table corruption ...