Re: configure level change on arm to build PIC until glibc-2.2?
On Mon, 28 Aug 2000, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> > Poorer code generated for static executables; useless register loads.
> > Results in a performance penalty, larger code size.
>
> This is why Debian policy requires shared objects to be built with -fPIC, static
> without (section 4.2). If something is not being built this way, a bug report
> would be in order.
Well, quite. Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I don't see what
the use of a non-position-independent shared object is; whether Debian
policy mandates it or not, I would have imagined it were a technical
necessity. Or perhaps `-fPIC' and `position independent' aren't fully
synonymous.
This is the sort of issue `libtool' is supposed to ease. Presumably
the wrongly-built shared libraries just aren't using libtool and making
wrong guesses for the architecture, or perhaps using old versions of
libtool.
Hopefully when wanna-peruse is finished, we should be able to go and
ask questions like `which packages failed because of a shared library
error?' and get the answer. :-)
c.
Reply to: