On Feb 23, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> wrote: > The usual i386-centric reason: the PIC version is (~5%) slower than > the non-PIC version. See PACKAGERS in the source, section 4.1. > I considered doing this only on i386, but since I only have an i386 to > test on, I would worry about missing packaging bugs. Using non-PIC code for a 5% speed up looks like an acceptable trade off to me, but it really must be restricted only to architectures which need it. But there is no reason to statically link the packages: you can still build the library non-PIC and dinamically link programs with it: this will waste RAM as if they were statically linked, but at least will save disk space. Beware: this does not work on all architectures, so I think should be enabled only for i386. If this will cause bugs then somebody will report them, this is what users are for... :-) -- ciao, Marco
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature